BX  5880  .M3 

McCrady,  Edward,  1868- 
Where  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  stands 


^ 


WHERE    THE    PROTESTANT 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  STANDS 


WHERE  THE 

PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL 

CHURCH   STANDS 

A    Review    of  Official  Definitions 
Versus  Non-Official  Theories  Con- 
cerning the  Nature  and  Extent  of 
The  Church  Catholic 


BY  THE 

REV.    EDWARD    McCRADY 

RECTOR  OF  THE  CHURCH   OF  THE  NATIVITY 
GREENWOOD,  MISSISSIPPI 


NEW  YORK 
E.  P.  BUTTON  AND  COMPANY 

681  Fifth  Avenue 
1916 


Copyright 

E.  P.  DUTTON  &  CO. 

1916 

Printed  in  the  U.  S.  A. 


ran  •ftnfclierbocljet  pxta,  tKc>io  IBorfc 


To  The 
EVANGELICAL  KNOWLEDGE  SOCIETY 

OF   THE 

PROTESTANT   EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

That,  in  AiN  age  of  spiritual  narrowness,  is  nobly  endeavor- 
ing TO  keep  alive  those  principles  of  the 
Anglican  Reformation 
Which, 
Protestant  against  all  Ecclesiastical  Arrogance — Tolerant 

OF  ALL  things   SAVE  INTOLERANCE  ITSELF — AND   EXCLUD- 
ING   NO   Body    of    Christians   on   Earth,    it 

RIGHTLY    PROCLAIMS   TO   BE   THE   ONLY 

ALL-COMPREHENSIVE  AND   CATHOLIC  BASIS 

Upon  which  a  divided  Christendom 

May  unite — 

These  pages  are  Gratefully  Dedicated 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I. — The  Proposed  Name — Its  Significance        3 

II. — Official  Declarations  Concerning  the 

Church  Catholic      ....       29 

III. — Other      Declarations — Official      and 

Non-Official    .....       55 

IV. — Objections  Considered         .         .         .113 

V. — Do  "Catholics"  Represent  the  Church?    141 

VI. — The  Kikuyu  Controversy   .         .         .157 

VII. — Development  in  Theology  .         .         .195 

VIII. — Conclusion 229 


I 

THE  PROPOSED  NAME— ITS  SIGNIFICANCE 


Where  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  Stands 


THE  PROPOSED  NAME— ITS  SIGNIFICANCE 

THAT  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  a  part 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  is  a  fact  uni- 
versally admitted  by  all  classes  within  our 
communion,  and  did  the  present  agitation  for  a 
change  of  name  contemplate  nothing  further  than 
the  mere  expediency  of  emphasizing  that  fact  upon 
the  title  page  of  the  Prayer  Book  or  elsewhere,  little 
objection  woiild  or  could  be  raised  to  it.  In  reality, 
however,  the  object  of  this  movement  is  of  far  deeper 
significance.  It  is  not  merely  to  emphasize  the  fact 
that  this  Church  is  a  legitimate  branch  of  the 
Catholic  Church  that  this  matter  has  been  systemati- 
cally kept  before  the  General  Conventions  of  the 
Church  for  years  past.  The  real,  underlying  motive 
of  the  movement  is  to  bring  about  a  further  funda- 
mental change  in  the  doctrinal  position  of  the 
Church.     This,  indeed,  should  have  been  obvious 

3 


4    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

when  the  attempt  was  made  to  strike  out  the  word 
"Protestant"  from  our  legal  title.  But  while  the 
significance  of  this  resolution  in  behalf  of  this  particu- 
lar change  is  now,  perhaps,  fairly  well  appreciated, 
it  so  happens  that  there  are  few  apparently,  who  are 
alive  to  the  real  meaning  and  intent  of  the  other 
titles  suggested.  All  these,  in  one  way  or  another, 
propose  to  incorporate  the  word  "Catholic"  in  the 
official  title  of  this  particular  branch  of  the  Univer- 
sal Church.  That  such  an  attempt,  irrespective  of 
the  motive  involved,  is  necessarily  beset  with  diffi- 
culties should  be  obvious  even  upon  a  casual  examina- 
tion of  the  problem.  For,  first  of  all,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  as  long  as  the  organic  unity  of  the 
Church  Universal  is  not  an  existent  fact,  denomina- 
tional titles — which  are  necessarily  differentiative — 
are  absolutely  essential  to  distinguish  the  several 
branches  of  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  could  the  mere 
adoption  of  some  common  appellation,  in  itself, 
effect  the  unity  desired,  or  accomplish  anything  but 
confusion  worse  confounded.  If  every  legitimate 
branch  of  the  Church  Catholic,  simply  because  of  its 
consciousness  of  substantial  connection  therewith, 
should  follow  the  lead  of  the  Roman  Church  and 
call  Itself  "The  Holy  CathoHc  Church, "  this,  in  itself, 
woiild  accomplish  nothing  for  the  cause  of  organic 
unity  or  union  between  the  several  "branches." 
On  the  other  hand,  it  would  lead  to  hopeless  obscurity 
in  all  legal  and  practical  affairs.  Moreover,  the 
adoption  of  such  a  title  would  be  as  illogical  as  it 
would  be  inexpedient.    For  to  give  to  this  "branch" 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS    5 

of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  its  denominational  or 
"branch"  title,  any  such  appellation  as  "The 
Catholic  Church,"  "The  Holy  CathoHc  Church," 
etc.,  such  as  was  actually  suggested  at  one  stage 
of  the  discussion,  would  involve  the  absurdity  of 
designating  a  part  by  the  title  belonging  only  to  the 
whole.  It  would  be  nothing  less  absurd  than  to  call 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  the  United  States  of  America, 
merely  because  the  former  rightly  claims  to  be  a 
legitimate  part  of  the  latter.  Unless  we  are  prepared 
to  make  the  monstrous  claim  that  the  entire  Church 
Catholic  is  coterminous  with  that  particular  body 
known  as  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  that 
all  other  "churches"  so  called,  are  but  human 
societies  having  no  real  connection  with  the  true 
Body  of  Christ,  there  is  obviously  no  sensible  pretext 
for  the  adoption  of  such  a  title.  The  Roman  Church, 
indeed,  does  actually  make  such  an  extravagant 
claim  for  herself,  and  it  is  because  of  this  very  fact 
that  she  does  consistently  repudiate  all  Christian 
Bodies  not  in  visible  communion  with  the  Roman  See, 
condemning  them  as  mere  man-made  societies. 

Even  the  most  ardent  supporter  of  the  Fond  du  Lac 
agitation  is  not  prepared  for  such  extravagant  pre- 
tensions on  our  part.  The  most  extreme  "  Catholic" 
Churchman  fully  recognizes  the  claims  of  Roman, 
Greek,  and  Anglican  Churches  to  be  legitimate  parts 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  This  being  the  case,  we  say 
that  the  adoption  of  such  a  name  as  the  official  title 
of  this  particular  communion  would  be  senseless, 
even  from  their  point  of  view,  since  it  would  not 


6    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

even  have  the  pretense  of  rational  justification  that 
the  Roman  view  involves,  and  would  entail  endless 
confusion.  To  have  a  number  of  Churches  each 
calling  itself  the  *'Holy  Catholic  Church";  yet 
refusing  to  enter  into  organic  union  with  one  another 
would  simply  mean  chaos  in  the  Ecclesiastical  world. 
From  the  standpoint  of  expediency,  then,  the  proposi- 
tion is  impracticable,  while  from  the  standpoint  of 
logic  it  is  absurd.  We  would  not  notice  it  here  at 
all,  were  it  not  that  such  a  title  has  been  seriously 
proposed  from  time  to  time.  In  short,  for  this 
denomination  to  adopt  the  title  "The  Catholic 
Church,"  or  "The  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  as  its 
official  name  would  be  simply  to  do  one  of  two  things 
— either  (a)  to  claim  that  this  Church  is  the  one  and 
only  Church  Catholic  on  earth — all  others  being 
excluded  from  the  visible  Body  of  Christ;  or  else,  (b) 
to  be  guilty  of  the  absurdity  of  giving  to  a  part  the 
title  which  can  only  logically  belong  to  the  whole. 
It  was  doubtless  to  avoid  this  dilemma,  which  must 
indeed  have  been  patent  to  the  leaders  of  the  move- 
ment, that  the  more  defensible  title  of  "The 
American  Catholic  Church"  came  gradually  to  the 
forefront. 

The  American  Catholic  Church 

The  advantage  of  this  appellation  is  that  it  is 
undeniably  a  branch  title  and  so  avoids  the  absurdity 
of  either  of  the  above  implications.  If  we  should 
adopt  it,  we  would  neither  be  guilty  of  claiming  to 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS     7 

be  the  whole  Church  on  Earth,  nor  could  it  be  said 
that  we  had  given  to  a  part  the  title  belonging  to 
the  whole.  In  short,  the  name  American  Catholic 
directly  connects  us  with  the  Church  Universal 
throughout  the  world,  while  it  simultaneously  dif- 
ferentiates or  distinguishes  us  from  all  other  parts 
or  branches  of  that  Church.  To  borrow  an  expres- 
sion from  a  little  book  entitled  A  Handbook  of  hifor- 
mation  published  some  time  ago  by  the  Young 
Churchman  Co.,  of  Milwaukee,  this  proposed  name 
has  the  advantage  of  suggesting  "Historic  Identity 
with  the  Church  of  the  Ages"  {i.e.,  in  the  word 
"Catholic")  and  simultaneously  by  the  prefix  "Ameri- 
can" such  identity  is  further  "localized"  so  "as  to 
imply  this  particular  body  in  the  United  States  and 
none  other. ' '  Here  then  we  have  a  proposition 
presented,  which,  on  the  surface,  appears  to  be  a 
very  harmless  one,  even,  if  to  many  of  us,  the  neces- 
sity for  it  is  not  so  apparent.  For  to  those  who  do  not 
look  beneath  the  surface,  it  seems  at  first  sight  to  be 
a  reasonable  proposition  that  if  that  part  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  originating  in  Italy  be  designated 
the  Rommi  Catholic  Church — that  part  originating 
in  Greece  be  designated  the  Greek  Catholic  Church — 
that  part  originating  in  England,  the  Anglican  or 
Anglo-CaLihoVic,  then  that  part  which  originated  in 
America  should  likewise  be  legitimately  termed  the 
American  Catholic.  But  what  about  the  Methodist, 
Baptist,  Presbyterian,  Congregationalist,  and  other 
bodies  likewise  in  America  ?  Are  they  to  be  excluded 
from    the    Catholic    Church?      Is    this    Protestant 


8     WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Episcopal  Church  the  only  true  branch  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church  native  to  America — hence  the  only  one 
that  can  logically  claim  to  be  the  American  Catholic 
Church?  Now  this  is  a  very  embarrassing  question. 
In  fact,  it  is  so  embarrassing  that  it  is  most  carefully 
avoided — not  only  by  "Catholics,"  but  by  a  large 
number  of  more  moderate  Churchmen  who  have 
been  completely  misled  in  their  estimate  of  these 
matters  by  certain  extravagant  claims  'of  modem 
Episcopacy.  Yet  this  is  the  crux  of  the  whole 
matter.  In  short,  if  he  is  cornered,  and  obliged  to 
make  a  definite  answer,  the  "Catholic"  Churchman 
replies — "No,  the  Methodist,  Baptist,  Presbyterian, 
Congregationalist  and,  in  fact,  the  Protestant  bodies 
generally,  are  not  parts  or  branches  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  for  the  reason  that  they  have  not  the  His- 
toric Episcopate  which  is  absolutely  essential  to  the 
ministry,  Sacraments,  and,  in  general,  the  being  of 
the  Church."  Nullus  Episcopus,  Nulla  Ecclesia 
("No  Bishop — No  Church")  is  a  fundamental 
motto,  hence  of  all  the  so-called  Protestant  bodies 
existing  in  America,  that  which  is  now  termed  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  the  only  one  that 
can  legitimately  claim  to  be  a  true  branch  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  for  in  this  alone  is  the  Historic 
Episcopate  represented.  It  is  for  this  reason,  there- 
fore, that  it  can  alone  claim  in  very  truth  to  be  the 
American  Catholic  Church,  as  it  is  the  one  dis- 
tinctively American  branch  of  that  Church.  This, 
then,  is  the  significance  of  the  proposed  name.  It 
at  once  emphasizes  our  connection  with  the  true 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS  9 

Church  Catholic,  while  it  simultaneously  differen- 
tiates us  from  all  the  Protestant  "Sects."  It  will, 
of  course,  be  immediatel}'-  evident  also  to  our  readers 
what  a  w^onderful  advantage  this  name  will  have 
over  the  present  clumsy  title  in  promoting  the  cause 
of  Christian  Unity — especially  in  winning  the  Protes- 
tant "Sects"  from  the  error  of  their  ways,  and 
giving  them  the  opportunity  of  discovering  the  true 
Church  Universal.  As  Dr.  Manning  so  cogently 
expressed  it  upon  the  floor  of  the  last  convention,  a 
Church  that  is  leading  the  movement  for  Universal 
Christian  Unity  should  not  be  encumbered  by  so 
narrow  an  appellation.  It  should  have  a  more 
"Comprehensive"  title — and  what  more  "Compre- 
hensive" than  "American  Catholic".?  That  is  to 
say  what  more  "comprehensive"  than  that  designa- 
tion which  makes  the  Catholic  Church  coterminus 
with  the  Historic  Episcopate,  and  consigns  all  non- 
Episcopal  bodies  to  the  limbo  of  the  "unconverted 
heathen. "  Lest  it  be  thought  that  we  are  somewhat 
exaggerating  the  import  of  this  view  in  its  relation 
to  the  limits  of  the  Catholic  Church,  it  may  be  well 
to  cite  a  few  passages  from  the  works  of  some  well- 
known  authorities.  Beginning  with  the  Tractarians, 
whom  all  good  "Catholics"  regard  as  authoritative, 
and  as  pioneers  in  the  exposition  of  their  tenets 
within  the  English  Church,  we  find  the  British 
CRITIC — "their  principal  organ  in  England  " — thus 
expressing  itself:  "A  Church  ...  is  such  only  by 
virtue  of  that  from  which  it  obtains  its  Unity — and  it 
obtains  its  Unity  only  from  that  in  which  it  centers, 


10    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

viz. : — the  Bishop.  .  .  .  Therefore  we  declare  .  .  . 
that  the  Episcopal  dignity  is  so  necessary  in  the  Church 
that  without  a  Bishop  there  cannot  exist  any  Church, 
nor  any  Christian  man:  no,  not  so  much  as  in  name. 
For  he,  as  successor  of  the  Apostles  ...  is  the 
source  of  and  fountain,  as  it  were,  of  all  those  mys- 
teries of  the  Catholic  Church,  through  which  we 
obtain  Salvation.  And  we  hold  the  necessity  of  a 
Bishop  to  be  as  great  in  the  Church  as  the  breath  of  life 
is  in  a  man,  or  as  the  Sun  is  in  the  system  of  Creation." 
(Quoted  by  Schmucker,  Hist,  of  All  Religions,  pp. 
293,  294.)  With  the  exception  of  that  portion  which 
denies  that  even  individual  Christians  can  exist 
apart  from  the  Bishop — (a  matter  upon  which  there 
is  diversity  of  opinion)  the  above  may  be  said  to 
express  the  unanimous  opinion  not  only  of  the 
Tractarians  and  their  followers,  but  of  many  High 
Churchmen  of  the  present  time — "without  a  Bishop 
there  cannot  exist  any  Church";  ergo,  all  non- 
Episcopal  bodies  are  outside  the  pale  of  the  Church. 
Says  Bishop  Hobart:  "Whoever  is  in  Communion 
with  the  Bishop,  the  Supreme  governor  of  the  Church 
on  Earth,  is  in  Communion  with  the  Head  of  it ;  and 
whoever  is  not  in  Communion  with  the  Bishop,  is 
thereby  cut  off  from  Communion  with  Christ."  {A 
Companion  to  the  Festival  and  Fast,  p.  59.)  So 
also  Dr.  Dix  tells  us  that  no  man  can  be  "a  lawful 
minister"  who  has  not  been  "ordained  by  the 
Bishop."  The  "Protestant  Sects"  are  not  Churches 
at  all,  but  have  ''cut  themselves  off  from  the  Catholic 
Church,     by    abandoning    the     Catholic    Ministry.'* 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         ii 

(Trinity  Church  Catechism.)  Again,  the  Rev. 
Walker  Gwynne  affirms  that  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  "large  bodies  of  Christians  under 
Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  and  others,  broke  away  from 
the  Catholic  Church  in  its  corrupt  state,  and  formed 
independent  sects.  .  .  .  Instead  of  rejecting  only 
the  Roman  errors,  which  were  new,  they  rejected 
also  the  Catholic  Ministry  and  worship,  which  were 
apostolic  and  old,  a7id  thus  cut  themselves  off  from  the 
Catholic  Church.''  {Manual  of  Christian  Doctrine, 
p.  199.)  He  also  informs  us  on  the  next  page,  that 
' '  The  Catholic  Church, ' '  from  which  the  above 
mentioned  Protestants  "broke  away"  or  "cut  them- 
selves off  "  is  ''the  only  way  to  Salvatiort.  "  That  it  has 
''three  great  branches,"  viz.:  "The  Churches  in 
Communion  with  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury"; 
"The  Churches  in  Communion  with  the  Greek 
Bishop  or  Patriarch  of  Constantinople";  and  "The 
Churches  in  Communion  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome." 
All  other  "Societies  today  calling  themselves  Churches," 
have  no  right  to  the  title — they  are  mere  "Sects." 
To  the  same  effect  the  Rev.  E.  W.  Hunter  informs 
us  that  "The  Church  of  God"  is  one,  as  to  Holy 
Orders:  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  Holy  as  to 
teaching.  Catholic  as  to  jurisdiction,  Apostolic  as 
to  origin."  That  "In  these  United  States  there  are 
three  religious  bodies  that  fulfil  these  essential 
requirements,  namely:  The  'Protestant  Episcopal' 
Church,  The  'Roman  Catholic'  Church,  The  Greek 
Church.  {The  Holy  Catholic  Church,  p.  11.)  And 
again  that  "there  are  three  principal  branches  of  the 


12    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS; 

Holy  Catholic  Church:  The  Anglican,  called  in  the 
United  States  the  'Protestant  Episcopal';  the 
'Holy  Roman,'  and  the  'Holy  Orthodox.'  {Impor- 
tant Items  Regarding  the  Church,  p.  4.)  He  adds 
also  that  on  account  of  our  unfortunate  title;  "Pro- 
testant Episcopal,"  only  two  of  these  bodies  are 
"popularly  supposed  to  fulfill  these  requirements," 
viz.: — the  "Roman  Catholic  and  the  Greek." 
Therefore,  he  argues  that  this  "Modem  and  Secta- 
rian" title  .  .  .  "which  operates  as  an  obstacle  to 
Christian  Unity"  should  give  place  to  that  of  "The 
American  Cathohc  Church."  Numbers  of  other 
quotations  could  be  adduced  to  the  same  effect  but 
the  above  are  amply  sufficient  to  show  that  in  the 
opinion,  not  only  of  our  so-called  "Catholic" 
Churchman,  but  also  of  a  large  number  of  High 
Churchmen,  the  Protestant  Churches,  so-called,  are 
not  churches  at  all  but  man-made  "Sects."  They 
have  no  part  or  parcel  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church, 
for  they  ''broke  away''  from  this  Church,  or  ''cut 
themselves  off"  from  it  by  "ahando7ting  the  Catholic 
Ministry,  "  that  is  the  Historic  Episcopate,  which  is  so 
absolutely  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church  that 
"without  a  Bishop  there  can?iot  exist  any  Church." 
Hence,  as  the  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Baptist, 
Congregationalist,  and  the  rest  of  the  Protestant 
"Sects"  are  no  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  on 
account  of  the  absence  of  the  Historic  Episcopate, 
and  as  we,  the  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  are  the  only  ones  to  retain  this  absolute 
essential,  it  follows  inevitably  that  we,  and  we  alone. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         13 

represent  the  American  branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church.  We  should  therefore  clearly  proclaim  the 
fact  to  the  world  by  calling  ourselves  "The  American 
Catholic  Church." 

Now  it  must  be  fully  confessed  that  if  this  is  the 
official  teaching  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
with  regard  to  the  nature  and  limits  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  the  conclusion  derived  from  it  is  inevitable, 
and  the  legitimacy  of  calling  ourselves  The  American 
Catholic  Church  cannot  be  denied:  but — it  must 
also  be  as  fully  confessed  again,  that  if  this  is 
not  the  official  teaching  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  with  regard  to  the  nature  and  limits  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  but  on  the  contrary  is  absolutely 
incompatible  with  that  teaching,  then  the  conclusion 
derived  from  it  is  false,  and  the  adoption  of  the  title 
American  Catholic  involves  nothing  more  or  less 
than  a  fundamental  change  m  the  doctrinal  position  of 
the  Church.  It  so  happens  that  the  above  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  and  limits  of  the  Catholic  Church 
is  not  that  which  has  received  the  official  Sanction  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  but  is  absolutely 
inconsistent  therewith,  hence  any  attempt  to  adopt 
the  name.  The  American  Catholic  Church,  means, 
in  plain  English,  an  attempt  to  change  a  fundamental 
principle.  We  now  propose  to  prove  the  truth  of  this 
assertion,  by  submitting  evidence  as  to  what  the 
official  teaching  of  this  Church  really  is,  as  to  the 
nature  and  limits  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


14         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 
Official  View  of  the  Church 

We  purpose  to  show  first,  that  the  Church  of 
England,  and  secondly,  that  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal, have  from  the  very  beginning  consistently 
maintained  but  one  attitude  on  the  subject  of  the 
nature  and  limits  of  the  Catholic  Church;  that 
instead  of  limiting  it  to  the  sphere  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches,  they  have  officially  declared  it  to  cover  the 
entire  body  of  bapti?-ed  persons,  and  even  professing 
Christians,  throughout  the  world,  and  have  further 
recognized  some  of  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  by 
name  as  legitimate  branches  thereof.  Before  pre- 
senting the  direct  evidence  upon  this  point  (which  is 
abundant),  we  desire  to  pave  the  way  by  calling 
attention  to  a  certain  matter  which  although  bearing 
only  indirectly  on  the  subject,  nevertheless  affords 
evidence  which  is  conclusive.  It  is  the  official  teach- 
ing of  the  Church  of  England,  as  well  as  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  that  Baptism  is  that  rite  by 
which  we  are  incorporated  into  the  Body  of  Christ, 
which  body  is  the  Catholic  Church. 

"The  Church,  which  is  His  Body."  (Ephes.  i., 
22,  23.)  This  fact  is  so  generally  admitted  that  it 
seems  unnecessary  to  cite  evidence  for  the  confirma- 
tion of  it,  but  for  form's  sake  we  refer  the  reader  to 
the  following:  "Baptism  wherein  I  was  made  a 
member  of  Christ  {i.e.  of  His  Body — the  Church) 
the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,"  (Catechism.)  " Grant  to  this  child  that 
thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have;  that  he  may 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS    15 

be  baptized  with  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
received  into  Christ's  Holy  Church,  and  be  made  a 
living  member  of  the  Same."  (Pub.  Baptism  of 
Infants — English  Pr.  Book.)  And  immediately 
upon  the  consummation  of  the  act  of  Baptism,  the 
officiating  Clergyman  says:  "We  receive  this  child 
into  the  congregation  of  Christ's  flock. "...  "See- 
ing now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is 
regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's 
Church."  .  .  .  "We  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks, 
most  Merciful  Father  that  it  has  pleased  Thee  to  .  .  . 
incorporate  him  into  Thy  Holy  Church,  etc. "  (Pub. 
Bap.  Infants-English  Pr.  Book.)  (Practically  the 
same  expressions  occur  also  in  the  corresponding 
offices  of  our  own  Prayer  Book.  From  these  and 
numberless  other  declarations  set  forth  by  authority, 
it  is  easily  deduced  that  this  is  the  teaching  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church — viz.; — that  every 
person  who  has  been  duly  baptized  has  been  made 
therein  and  thereby,  a  member  of  Christ's  Body  or 
Church.  Hence  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  are  co-extensive  with  the  company  of  all 
baptized  persons  throughout  the  world.'  This 
much  then  is  demonstrable.  An  objection  is  easily 
urged    by    the    question,    what    constitutes    valid 

'  We  are  fully  aware  that  a  very  ingenious  argument  has  been 
recently  brought  forward  to  offset  this  difficulty,  viz: — that  which 
contends  that  though  as  individuals,  Protestants  are  members  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  their  organizations  have  no  right  whatever  to  be 
considered  as  legitimate  parts  or  branches  of  the  same.  This  objec- 
tion will  be  fully  dealt  with  later  on,  though  its  irrelevance  should 
be  obvious. 


i6    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Baptism?  We  will  admit,  say  our  opponents,  that 
this  Church  as  well  as  the  mother  Church  of  England, 
has  officially  affirmed  that  all  validly  baptized  persons 
are  members  of  the  Church  Catholic,  but  it  does  not 
necessarily  follow  from  this  that  these  so-called 
Baptisms  are  real  Baptisms.  If  Baptism  is  a  Sacra- 
ment, and  if  every  Sacrament  depends  for  its  validity 
upon  its  administration  at  the  hands  of  an  Epis- 
copally  ordained  Clergyman,  it  follows  inevitably 
that  there  are  no  valid  baptisms  administered  in  non- 
Episcopal  Churches  so-called.  Therefore,  the  Protes- 
tant bodies  are  no  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Now  we  present  this  objection  merely  because  it  is 
the  legitimate  argument  following  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Episcopate  is  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  Sacraments  generally.  As  an  actual  fact, 
however,  "Catholics"  knowing  only  too  well  that 
the  Church  has  unqualifiedly  recognized  the  validity 
of  Baptism  administered  in  non-episcopal  bodies, 
and  even  of  Lay  Baptism,  do  not  (because  they 
cannot),  take  this  line  of  defence  but  with  strange 
inconsistency  admit  that  Lay  Baptism  is  valid 
(hence  that  individual  Protestants  are  all  members 
of  the  Church)  while  simultaneously  continuing  to 
make  the  assertion  that  the  Episcopate  is  essential 
to  the  validity  of  the  Sacraments  generally,  and  to 
the  very  being  oj  the  Church.  Note  well  the  inconsist- 
ency !  When  speaking  generally,  they  sweepingly 
assert  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  ''Sacraments''  {plural),  hence  essential  to  the 
validity  of  both  the  Holy  Communion  and  Baptism. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        17 

When  confronted,  however,  with  the  Church's 
official  recognition  of  Lay  Baptism,  and  their  own 
admission  that  even  individual  Protestants  are 
members  of  the  Church  CathoHc  (by  virtue  of  their 
valid  Baptism  therein)  they  elastically  adjust  them- 
selves to  the  new  position  so  necessitated,  as  if  the 
point  were  oj  no  consequence  whatever.  (Whereas  the 
tacit  admission  is  actual  surrender.)  They  quite  as 
tenaciously  hold  on  to  what  is  left  of  the  assertion, 
viz:  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  validity  of 
the  Holy  Communion,  any  way.  From  the  fact  that 
Baptism,  and  not  the  Holy  Communion,  is  the 
Sacrament  oJ  admission  to  membership  in  the  Church 
Catholic,  and  thus  the  only  one  that  affects  the  ques- 
tion before  us  one  way  or  another,  what  is  left  of  the 
proposition  is  wholly  irrelevant,  even  if  it  were  true. 
As  an  actual  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  even  true.  If 
Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  one  Sacra- 
ment, it  is  essential  to  the  other  also — AND  IF  NOT 
—WHY  NOT?  LET  US  HA  VE  THE  ANSWER. 
Not  to  anticipate  matters  which  will  be  exhaus- 
tively discussed  in  the  following  chapters,  and  in 
order  to  pave  the  way  to  a  better  understanding  of 
what  is  to  follow,  we  will  now  proceed  to  substantiate 
our  initial  proposition  regarding  the  Church's  atti- 
tude toward  the  matter  of  Lay  and  Protestant  Bap- 
tism. That  both  the  Church  of  England,  and  our 
own  Communion,  have  officially  recognized  the 
validity  of  Lay  Baptism,  and  in  actual  practice  have 
regularly  admitted  the  Baptism  of  Protestant  Minis- 
ters, generally,  as  valid,  is  so  well  known  that  it 


i8         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

would  seem  wholly  unnecessary  to  cite  evidence 
upon  the  subject,  but  in  order  that  no  step  in  the 
argument  may  be  criticized  as  unsupported,  and 
that  from  first  to  last  it  may  be  clearly  seen  that  we 
appeal  only  to  what  has  been  set  forth  by  authority, 
we  will  address  ourselves  to  the  task. 

Lay  Baptism 

"Yea,  'Baptism  by  any  man  in  case  of  necessity,' 
was  the  voice  of  the  whole  world  heretofore.  Neither 
is  TertuUian,  Epiphanius,  Augustine,  or  any  other 
of  the  ancients  against  it. "  (Hooker,  Eccles.  Polity, 
bk.  v.,  ch.  Ixi.,  3.) 

"The  universal  tradition  and  practice  of  the 
Church  from  the  earliest  ages  has  allowed  the  valid- 
ity of  Lay  Baptism  in  cases  of  necessity,  a  rebaptism 
never  being  required  for  such  persons.  The  question 
was  fully  discussed  in  the  Church  of  Carthage  with 
the  above  conclusion."  {Church  Cyclopcsdia,  Art., 
Baptism.) 

"The  question  of  rebaptizing  or  otherwise  was 
for  the  most  part  determined  (in  the  early  Church) 
simply  by  the  question  whether  the  essential  elements 
of  Baptism  were  wanting  or  no,  viz.,  water  and  the 
•words  prescribed  by  our  Lord.  If  these  were  em- 
ployed the  Baptism  was  regarded  as  valid,  though 
irregular,  and  the  person  so  baptized  was  admitted 
into  Communion,  if  on  other  grounds  found  worthy, 
after  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Bishop.  "  (Smith, 
Cheetham  Diet.  Chr.  Antiq.,  vol.  i.,  Art.,  Baptism.) 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         19 

"This  is  clearly  laid  down  by  the  Canon  Law:  A 
Priest  is  the  ordinary  minister  of  Baptism:  the  Bap- 
tism of  women  is  forbidden  except  in  the  case  of 
necessity :  but  even  the  Baptism  of  a  Jew  or  a  Pagan 
must  not  be  reiterated.  (Decret.  pars  iii.  de  Con- 
secratione:  de  Baptismi  Sacramento,  xix.,  xx.,  xxiii.) 
And  we  must  remember  that  the  Canon  Law,  which 
in  the  Middle  Ages  was  the  Law  of  the  Western 
Church,  including  the  Church  of  England,  has  re- 
mained no  less  so  since  the  Reformation,  except 
where  contrary  to  the  Statute  Law  or  the  royal  pre- 
rogative. The  Legatine  and  Provincial  Constitu- 
tions, made  under  the  sanctions  of  Cardinal  Otho 
and  Othobon,  the  Pope's  Legates,  and  by  many 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  are  given  in  Lynde- 
wood's  Provinciale  (a.d.  1679).  The  usage  in  case 
of  necessity  of  Lay  Baptism  (men  and  women)  is 
strictly  enjoined.  Priests  are  commanded  to  teach 
their  parishioners  the  right  Form  of  Baptism;  and 
Archbishop  Peccham  censures  certain  fooHsh  Priests 
{Stolidi  Sacerdotes)  who  profaned  by  reiterating  the 
Sacrament  after  Lay  Baptism  (Lyndewood,  De 
Baptismo  et  ejus  Effectu,  lib.  iii.,  tit.  xxiv.) — 
Blunt's  Diet.  Doc.  and  Hist.  Theology,  Art.,  Lay 
Baptism.) 

"Such  Baptisms  {i.e.  administered  by  laymen) 
have  always  been  held  valid  by  the  Church  of  England.'' 
{Church  Handy  Diet.,  Art.,  Lay  Baptism.) 

"The  Sarum  Manual  enjoined  that  each  Parish 
Priest  should  often,  on  the  Sunday,  set  forth  to  his 
parishioners  the  Form  of  Baptizing  in  order  that,  if 


20    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

need  be,  they  {i.e.  the  parishioners)  might  know  how 
to  baptize  infants.  .  .  .  The  Sarum  Rubric  per- 
mitted Lay  Baptism  in  cases  of  necessity  only." 
{The  Prayer  Book  Interleaved,  p.  189.) 

Even  the  Council  of  Trent  held  the  same  view : 
"Si  quis  dixerit,  baptismum,  qui  etiam  datur  ab 
haereticis,  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti, 
cum  intentione  faciendi  quod  facit  Ecclesia,  non 
esse  verum  baptismum:  Anathema  sit."  (Cone. 
Trid.,  Sess.  VH.,  Canon  IV.,  De  Baptismo.)  ("If 
any  man  shall  say  that  Baptism,  even  though  it 
be  administered  by  heretics,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with 
the  intention  of  doing  what  the  Church  does,  is  not 
true  Baptism — Let  him  be  Anathema.") 

The  principle  thus  laid  down  has  been  definitely 
stated  from  time  to  time  by  English  Synods  from  a 
very  early  age;  and  the  Pupilla  Oculi,  which  was  a 
standard  book  of  instructions  for  the  Clergy  in  the 
mediseval  period,  has  some  exhaustive  statements  on 
the  subject  which  plainly  show  that  it  was  the 
practice  to  recognize  Baptism  as  valid  by  whomso- 
ever administered  if  given  with  the  proper  matter 
and  form  of  words;  which  practice  undoubtedly 
continued  up  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  This 
is,  at  the  same  time,  shown  most  clearly  and  authori- 
tatively by  the  Rubric  placed  at  the  end  of  Ritus 
Baptizandi  in  the  Salisbury  Manual,  which  is  as 
follows:  (Here  is  appended,  in  Latin,  the  specific 
direction  given  by  the  Parish  Priest  to  his  parish- 
ioners, to  be  used  by  them  in  baptizing  children,  when 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         21 

the  services  of  a  Priest  can  not  be  obtained.  He 
continues) — "The  substantial  part  of  the  above 
Rubric  was  retained  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
in  the  following  words:  "The  Pastors  and  Curates 
shall  oft  admonish  the  people  that  they  defer  not. 
.  .  .  And  also  they  shall  warn  them  that  without 
great  cause  and  necessity  they  baptize  not  children 
at  home  in  their  houses.  And  when  great  need  shall 
compel  them  so  to  do,  that  then  they  minister  it  on 
this  fashion.  First,  let  them  that  be  present  call 
upon  God  for  His  Grace,  and  say  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
if  the  time  will  suffer.  And  then  one  of  them  shall 
name  the  child,  and  dip  him  in  the  water,  or  pour 
water  upon  him,  saying  these  words,"  etc.  .  .  . 
"A7id  let  them  not  doubt,  but  that  the  child  so  baptized 
is  lawfully  afid  stcfficiently  baptized.  ..."  (Blunt's 
Annot.,  Book  Com.  Prayer,  p.  405.)  This  Rubric, 
introduced  into  the  first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward 
VI.  (1549),  after  the  form  of  the  Salisbury  Manual,  is 
repeated  in  the  second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward 
(1552).  It  has  thus  been  officially  authorized  three 
times  by  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Reforma- 
tion (to  say  nothing  of  the  official  sanctions  before 
that  time),  but  in  spite  of  this,  because  the  wording 
of  it  was  altered  in  the  Revision  of  1661,  it  has  been 
supposed  by  some  that  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the 
Church  on  this  point  was  officially  changed  at  that 
time.  That  this  is  not  the  case,  however,  can  easily 
be  demonstrated. 

The  same  men  who  ordered  the  alteration  of  the 
wording  of  this  Rubric  in  1661,  also  asserted  clearly 


22         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  emphatically  that  they  had  not  done  it  with  any 
intention  of  changing  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the 
Church  on  this  point — that,  in  fact,  of  "all  the 
sundry  alterations  proposed"  they  had  "rejected  all 
such  as  were  of  dangerous  consequence  (as  secretly 
striking  at  some  established  doctmie  or  laudable 
practice  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  indeed  of  the 
whole  Catholic  Chiirch  of  Christ)  .  ."  and  that  they 
did  freely  "profess  to  the  world  that  the  Book  as  it 
stood  before  established  by  law,  did  ?tot  contain  in  it 
any  thing  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  or  to  sound 
doctrine,''  etc.  (Preface,  Bk.  Com.  Prayer,  1661). 
If  then  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the  Church  of 
England  taught  the  legitimacy  of  Lay  Baptism 
before  1661,  and  specifically  so  in  this  Rubric,  and  if 
in  altering  the  wording  of  this  Rubric,  the  Revisers 
themselves  as  specifically  state  again  that  the  altera- 
tion was  not  made  with  the  purpose  of  changing  its 
doctrinal  significance  (viz. :  the  legitimacy  of  Lay 
Baptism),  it  follows  inevitably  that  the  Church  of 
England  since  the  year  1661  has  continued. to  hold 
that  doctrine.  This  in  itself  is  conclusive,  and  should 
settle  the  question,  if  question  it  be.  It  may  be  of 
interest,  however,  to  note  the  words  of  Blunt,  him- 
self a  High  Churchman.  After  noting  that  the  words 
"one  of  them"  in  the  former  Rubric  were  changed 
to  "lawful  minister,"  he  himself  remarks:  "These 
successive  alterations  have  been  supposed  to  narrow 
the  theory  of  the  Church  of  England  respecting 
Baptism,  and  to  restrict  its  valid  administration  to 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.     But  although  these 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         23 

additions  and  alterations  were  probably  made  with 
the  object  of  checking  Lay  Baptism,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  they  contain  any  decision  against  their  validity; 
nor,  indeed,  can  it  be  supposed,  for  a  moment,  that 
the   prudent   men   who   superintended   the   various 
revisions  of  the  Prayer  Book  would  have  reversed, 
merely  by  a  Rubric,   the  long  estabHshed  tenet  of 
the  Church  of  England  that  Lay  Baptisms  are  in 
some  cases  necessary,  and  are  not  to  be  repeated." 
Moreover,  he  significantly  adds,  in  comment  on  the 
expression    "lawful    minister":  "It    must    not    be 
forgotten  that  'minister'  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  means  'executor  officii,'  and  that  if  it  was 
used  here  in   that   sense,   the  addition  of   'lawful' 
does  not  by  any  means  of  necessity  restrict  it  to  a 
clergyman.      The    'alius    minister    ad    hoc    magis 
idoneus'  of  the  Rubric,  given  in  the  preceding  note, 
shows  that  the  word  'minister'  was  used  even  of  a 
Lay  person  in  the  case  of  the  ministration  of  Baptism 
long  before  the  Reformation."     (Annot.,  Bk.  Com. 
Pr.,  p.  405.)     But  while  all  this  is  true— and  more- 
over a  great  admission  for  a  High  Churchman— yet 
it  is  all  wholly  unnecessary  to  estabHsh  our  point. 
We  have  only  to  remember  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land taught  the  legitimacy  of  Lay  Baptism  prior  to 
1 66 1,  specifically  setting  it  forth  in  the  Rubric  above 
quoted.     We    have    only    to    remember    that    the 
Revisers  of  1661  have,  in  so  many  words,  declared 
that  no  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Prayer  Book  prior  to 
that  year  was  affected  in  any  way  whatever  by  the 
amendments  and  alterations  which  they  introduced. 


24         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

We  have  only  to  remember  these  facts,  we  say,  to 
prove  beyond  all  shadow  of  doubt  that  this  continued 
to  be  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Chiirch  of  England 
after  the  Restoration.  Moreover,  Blunt  tells  us  that, 
"although  there  were  supposed  to  be  about  300,000 
persons  in  England  who  had  been  baptized  by  Lay- 
men at  the  time  when  the  clergy  were  restored  to 
their  duties  in  1 66 1,  no  public  provision  was  made  by 
the  Church  for  rebaptizing  them,  nor  does  it  appear, 
that  any  doubt  whatever  was  thrown  upon  the 
validity  of  their  baptisms  by  those  who  revised  our 
Offices."  {Annot.,  Bk.  Com.  Pr.,  p.  ^05.)  Finally, 
if  there  should  still  remain  any  doubt  as  to  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Church  to-day,  we  have  only  to  remind  our 
readers  of  the  generally  acknowledged  fact  that  no 
doctrinal  alterations  or  changes  of  any  importance 
whatever,  have  been  made  either  in  the  Prayer  Book 
or  in  any  of  the  other  formularies  of  the  Church  of 
England  since  1661,  and  that,  with  regard  to  the  very 
matter  in  question,  the  legitimacy  of  Lay  Baptism 
has  twice  been  officially  affirmed  within  the  past  one 
hundred  years.  * '  The  validity  of  Lay  B aptism  during 
the  present  century  has  been  twice  decided  by  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  English  Church — in  the 
Court  of  Arches  in  the  case  of  Kemp  v.  Wickes 
(a.d.  1809),  and  in  that  of  Martin  v.  Escott  in  the 
Arches  Court  and  before  the  Judicial  Committee 
(a.d.  1841).  (Blunt's  Diet,  of  Doct.  and  Hist. 
Theology,  Art.,  Lay  Baptism.)  Add  to  this  the 
official  declaration  of  our  own  Communion  that 
"this  Church  is  far  from  intending  to  depart  from  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         25 

Church  of  England  in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine, 
discipline,  or  worship"  (Preface  to  Prayer  Book), 
and  the  well  known  fact  that  in  actual  practice  we 
are  accustomed  to  recognize  the  validity  of  Lay 
Baptism,  to  say  nothing  of  the  validity  of  the  Bap- 
tisms performed  by  Protestant  Ministers,  and  it  will 
be  easily  seen  that  our  contention  is  fully  established. 
But,  whatever  may  be  our  attitude  toward  the 
Ministers  of  other  Protestant  Churches,  once  admit 
that  this  Chiirch  recognizes  the  validity  even  of  Lay 
Baptism,  and  officially  recognizes  again  that  all  who 
are  validly  baptized  are  incorporated  into  the  Body 
of  Christ's  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  it  follows  in- 
evitably that  this  Church  officially  recognizes  all 
Protestants  as  members  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
Hence,  it  is  contrary  to  the  official  teaching  both  of 
the  Church  of  England  and  of  our  own  to  affirm 
that  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  is  limited  to  those 
Congregations  which  are  under  the  regimen  of  the 
Historic  Episcopate,  or  that  all  non-episcopal,  protes- 
tant  bodies  are  excluded  therefrom. 


II 

OFFICIAL   DECLARATIONS   CONCERNING 
THE  CHURCH  CATHOLIC 


27 


II 


OFFICIAL  DECLARATIONS  CONCERNING 
THE  CHURCH  CATHOLIC 

HAVING  now  demonstrated  our  contention 
from  the  indirect  evidence  afforded  by  the 
official  attitude  of  the  Church  on  the  matter 
of  Lay  Baptism,  we  will  next  proceed  to  establish  it 
from  the  direct  evidence  of  the  Church's  definitions 
of,  and  declarations  concerning,  the  Church  Catholic 
or  Universal.  That,  officially ^  she  has  never  limited 
her  conception  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  those 
particular  bodies  organized  under  the  government  of 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  as  so  many  of  her  clergy 
are  doing  to-day  in  her  name,  but  without  her 
authority,  will  be  clear  from  the  following  facts : 

(i)  In  the  "Prayer  for  all  Conditions  of  Men," 
the  English  Church  officially  identifies  the  Church 
Catholic  as  co-extensive  with  "all  those  who  profess 
and  call  themselves  Christians, "  and  as  the  number 
of  those  who  do  thus  profess  and  call  themselves 
Christians  is  not  limited  to  those  who  are  members 
of  Episcopal  Churches,  but  includes  all  Protestants, 
it  follows  that  the  Church  here  again,  in  this  Prayer, 
officially  recognizes  all  Protestants  as  members  of 

29 


30    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

the  Catholic  Church.  In  the  English  Prayer  Book 
the  passage  in  question  reads  as  follows:  "More 
especially,  we  pray  for  the  good  estate  of  the  Catholick 
Church;  that  it  may  be  so  guided  and  governed  by 
Thy  good  Spirit,  that  all  who  profess  and  call  them- 
selves Christians,  may  be  led  into  the  way  of  Truth, 
and  hold  the  Faith  in  unity  of  spirit,  in  the  bond  of 
peace,  and  in  righteousness  of  Hfe."  In  our  own 
Prayer  Book  the  first  clause  is  changed  slightly  in 
its  wording,  but  bears  precisely  the  same  import: 
"More  especially  we  pray  for  Thy  Holy  Church 
Universal;  that  it  may  be  so  guided,"  etc.  Note, 
moreover,  that  this  Prayer  was  not  issued  until  1662. 
Hence  it  was  the  official  expression  of  the  Church 
on  this  subject  at  the  time  of  the  Restoration.  As  it  is 
universally  conceded  that  no  doctrinal  or  other 
changes  have  crept  in  since  that  day,  it  is  obvious 
that  this  continues  to  be  the  official  view  to-day. 

(2)  The  same  definition  is  again  repeated  in  the 
Prayer  "for  the  whole  state  of  Christ's  Church 
Militant  here  m  Earth."  "Beseeching  Thee  to 
inspire  continually  the  Universal  Church  with  the 
spirit  of  Truth,  unity,  and  concord:  And  grant  that 
all  they  who  do  confess  Thy  Holy  Name,  may  agree  in 
the  truth  of  Thy  Holy  Word,  and  live  in  unity  and 
godly  love."  (Communion  Office,  Eng.  Pr.  Bk.) 
By  referring  to  our  own  Prayer  Book,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  same  Prayer  with  only  a  few  unessential 
verbal  alterations  has  been  officially  authorized. 
Still  further  on,  in  the  same  Office,  we  note:  "The 
Mystical   Body  of     Thy  Son,   which  is  the   blessed 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         31 

company  of  all  faithful  people."  The  wording  is  the 
same  in  both  the  American  and  EngHsh  Prayer 
Books. 

(3)  Again,  in  a  Prayer  set  forth  by  the  Church 
(circa  1572)  we  read:  "Be  merciful  (0  Father  of  all 
mercies)  to  Thy  Church  Universal  dispersed  through- 
out the  whole  world:  and  grant  that  all  they  that 
confess  Thy  Holy  Name,  may  agree  in  the  truth  of 
Thy  Holy  Word,  and  live  in  godly  concord  and 
unitie. " 

(4)  Again,  in  the  Bidding  Prayer  of  the  Church 
of  England,  pubhshed  in  the  Canons  of  1604  (Canon 
55),  and  set  forth  by  authority  of  Convocation,  we 
find  these  words:     "Ye  shall  pray  for  Christ's  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  that  is,  for  the  whole  congregation  of 
Christian  people  dispersed  throughout  the  world:'    If, 
still  ignoring  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  all 
these  official  utterances,  there  are  any  yet  ready  to 
assert  that  the  Church  authoritatively  supports  their 
Tractarian  theory  that  the  Episcopate  is  absolutely 
essential  to  the  existence  of  a  true  Church;  if  there 
are  yet  any  who,  in  defiance  of  the  above  quotations, 
are  disposed  to  maintain  this,  on  the  pretext  that 
such  expressions  as  "the  congregation  of  Christian 
people  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world,"  of 
"the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people,"  were 
intended  to  refer  only  to  those  who  were  faithful  to 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  Episcopate, 
and  who  were,  therefore,  the  only  true  "Christian 
people,"  we  reply  that  this  whole  fine-spun  hypo- 
thesis will  be  found  to  be  completely  shattered  by  a 


32         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

little  further  examination  of  the  evidence  before  us. 
For  first  of  all,  the  statement,  that  "all  who  profess 
and  call  themselves  Christians"  are  to  be  regarded  as 
members  of  the  Church  Catholic,  in  itself  contradicts 
this  assumption.  The  further  fact  that  all'  who  have 
been  baptized,  whether  by  a  valid  ministry,  or  only 
by  laymen,  have  been  officially  pronounced  members 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  places  the  attitude  of 
the  Church  of  England  towards  these  non-episcopal 
bodies  beyond  all  question.  Besides  all  this,  the 
possibility  of  any  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  Church's 
position  is  absolutely  eliminated  by  the  fact  that  she 
has  gone  beyond  these  general  statements,  and  in  a 
number  of  other  instances  has  in  so  many  words 
recognized  these  non-episcopal  congregations  as 
true  "Churches,"  and,  together  with  the  Greek, 
Roman,  and  her  own  communion,  included  them 
by  name  in  the  Holy  Catholic  or  Universal  Church. 
Thus,  as  early  as  1550  the  German  Protestants  in 
England  were  acknowledged  as  constituting  a  genu- 
ine branch  of  the  Church.  A  patent  was  granted 
them  by  Edward  VI.  to  protect  them  in  their  rights, 
"that  by  the  Ministers  oj  the  Church  of  the  Germans, 
and  other  strangers,  a  sound  interpretation  of  the 
most  Holy  Gospels,  and  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments  according  to  the  word  oJ  God  and  Apostolic 
customs  may  exist.''  Moreover,  in  the  Bidding 
Prayer,  set  forth  by  authority  in  1604 — a  portion  of 
which  we  have  just  quoted,  the  Church  of  Scotla^id  is 
specifically  mentioned,  by  name,  as  a  part  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  which  Church,  at  that  time,  was  a 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         33 

non-episcopal,  i.  e.  Presbyterian  body.  The  passage 
reads  as  follows:  "Ye  shall  pray  for  Christ's  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  that  is,  for  the  whole  Congrega- 
tion of  Christian  people  dispersed  throughout  the 
whole  world,  and  especially  for  the  Churches  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland."  (Canon  55.)' 
Again,  we  have  a  copy  of  a  license  issued  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Gnndal)  to  one  John 
Morrison  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
permitting  him  to  officiate  without  re-ordination  in 
the  Church  of  England,  and  assigning  as  a  reason 
the  validity  of  his  Presbyterian  ordination  in  ''the 
Reformed  Church  of  Scotland, ^^  to  wit:  "Since  you, 
the  aforesaid  John  Morrison  .  .  .  were  admitted 
and  ordained  to  sacred  Orders  and  the  Holy  Ministry, 
by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according  to  the  laudable 
form  and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland 
.  .  .  we,  therefore,  .  .  .  approving  and  ratifying  the 
form  of  your  Ordination  and  preferment  done  in  such 
manner  aforesaid,  grant  to  you  a  license  and  faculty, 
with  the  consent  and  express  command  of  the  most 
reverend  Father  in  Christ,  the  Lord  Edmund,  by  the 
Divine  Providence  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  etc. 
(License  dated  April  6,  1582.  See  full  text  of  same 
in  Strype's  Life  of  Archbishop  Grindal.  Also  cited 
by  Goode  and  other  authorities.)  This  is  official 
recognition  by  the  highest  authority  in  the  Church 

'  The  assertion,  sometimes  met  with  in  "  Catholic  "  text-books, 
that  the  Church  of  Scotland  here  mentioned  was  not  Presbyterian, 
is  without  foundation.  The  matter  is  fully  discussed  a  few  pages 
further  on. 


34         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

of  England  both  of  the  integrity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland  as  a  true  branch  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  of  the  consequent  validity  of  its  non- 
Episcopal  ordinations.  Moreover,  we  may  here  add, 
parenthetically,  that  this  particular  instance  is  only 
one  of  many,  it  being  a  fact  well  known  to  all  his- 
torians (though  strangely  ignored  and  suppressed 
by  High  Churchmen)  that  the  Chiirch  of  England 
for  more  than  a  hundred  years  not  only  officially 
recognized  the  validity  of  the  ordinations  of  such 
non-Episcopal  Churches,  but  habitually  admitted 
their  Ministers  to  her  own  communion  without  re- 
ordination.  This  has  been  attested  by  Strype,  Hall, 
Cosin,  Burnet,  Fleetwood,  Keble,  Hallam,  Macaulay, 
and  many  others.  Thus,  Hallam  tells  us:  "It  had 
not  been  unusual  from  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Reformation  to  admit  Ministers,  ordained  in  foreign 
Churches,  to  benefices  in  England;  no  reordinaton 
had  ever  been  practiced  with  respect  to  those  who 
had  received  imposition  of  hands  in  a  regular  Church ; 
and  hence  it  appears  that  the  Church  of  England, 
whatever  tenet  might  have  been  broached  in  con- 
troversy, did  not  consider  the  ordination  of  Pres- 
byters invalid."  {Constitutional  History,  p.  224.) 
Says  Macaulay,  "The  Church  of  Rome  held  that 
Episcopacy  was  of  Divine  institution,  and  that 
certain  supernatural  graces  of  a  high  order  had  been 
transmitted  by  the  imposition  of  hands  through  fifty 
generations  from  the  eleven  who  received  their 
commission  on  the  Galilean  Mount  to  the  Bishops 
who  met  in  Trent.    A  large  body  of  Protestants,  on 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         35 

the  other  hand?  regarded  Prelacy  as  positively  un- 
lawful, and  persuaded  themselves  that  they  found 
a  very  different  form  of  ecclesiastical  government 
prescribed  in  Scripture.  The  founders  of  the  Angli- 
can Church  took  a  middle  course.  They  retained 
Episcopacy,  but  they  did  not  declare  it  to  be  an  institu- 
tion essential  to  tJie  welfare  of  a  Christian  Society,  or  to 
the  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments.''  (Jlist.,  vol.  i.,  chap. 
i.)  "  Certainly  it  was  her  practicey'  declares  Bishop 
Fleetwood,  ''during  the  reigns  of  King  James  and 
Charles  I.;  and  to  the  year  166 1,  we  had  MANY 
ministers  from  Scotland,  from  France,  a7id  the  Low 
Countries,  who  were  ordained  by  Presbyters  only,  and 
not  by  Bishops,  and  they  were  instituted  into  benefices 
with  cure;  and  yet  were  never  re-ordained,  but  only 
subscribed  the  Articles."  {Works,  p.  552.)  Nor, 
we  may  add,  was  this  custom  ever  discontinued 
because  wrong  in  principle  or  doctrine,  but  as 
will  be  presently  shown,  because  practical  considera- 
tions rendered  it  highly  ijtexpedient.  After  the 
overthrow  of  Episcopal  Government  in  England 
during  the  days  of  Cromwell,  it  was  deemed  posi- 
tively necessary  in  order  to  insure  its  stability  in  the 
future,  that  all  Ministers  coming  into  the  Church 
from  other  denominations,  should  give  evidence  of 
good  faith,  by  submitting  to  Episcopal  Ordination, 
before  being  honored  with  benefice  and  cure.  In 
fact,  it  was  justly  complained  that  it  was  hardly  fair 
to  allow  men  who  were  openly  opposed  to  Episco- 
pacy, and  who  declined  to  be  ordained  by  Bishops, 
to  be  promoted  to  benefices  in  an  Episcopal  Church 


36    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  supported  out  of  the  pockets  of  a  people  who 
desired  an  Episcopal  Government.  Says  Bishop 
Hall,  "The  sticking  at  the  admission  of  our  brethren, 
returning  from  foreign  Reformed  Churches  was 
NOT  in  the  case  of  ordination,  but  of  institution  ; 
they  had  been  acknowledged  Ministers  of  Christ  without 
any  other  hands  laid  on  them;  but  according  to  the 
laws  of  our  land,  they  were  not  capable  of  institu- 
tion to  benefice,  unless  they  were  so  qualified  as 
the  statutes  of  this  realm  doth  require.  And  secondly, 
I  know  those,  more  than  one,  that  by  virtue  of  that 
ordination,  which  they  have  brought  with  them 
from  other  Reformed  Churches,  have  enjoyed  spiri- 
tual promotions  and  livings  without  any  exceptions 
against  the  lawfulness  of  their  callings."  {Works, 
vol.  X.,  p.  341.)  So  also  Macaulay,  "Episcopal 
ordination  was  now  {1662)  for  the  first  time,  made  an 
indispensable  qualification  for  preferment.  "  {Hist., 
vol.  i.,  p.  132.)  But  we  shall  produce  abundant 
evidence  a  little  later  on  as  to  this.  For  the  present 
we  merely  desire  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  for  more 
than  one  hundred  years  it  was  the  regular  custom  of 
the  Church  of  England  to  admit  non-episcopally 
ordained  Ministers  to  officiate,  and  to  hold  office  and 
benefice,  in  her  Communion,  and  that  when  the 
custom  was  discontinued,  it  was  for  practical  con- 
siderations only,  no  doctrinal  principle  being  in- 
volved. She  still  continued  to  recognize  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  Ordination.  As  a  recent  writer — 
the  late  Dr.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  has  said:  "It  is  an 
historical  absurdity  for  members  of  the  Church  of 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         37 

England  and  of  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  to  deny  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordina- 
tion, which  was  recognized  as  you  show  and  as  is 
well  known  to  all  historians,  by  the  fathers  and 
founders  of  the  Church  of  England."  But  the 
weightiest  evidence  of  all  comes  from  the  pen  of  one 
whom  our  "Catholic"  brethren  cannot  afford  to 
discredit.  No  name  is  held  in  greater  reverence 
among  them  than  that  of  John  Keble — one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Tractarian  movement — and  yet  no 
man  more  candidly  though  reluctantly  admits  the 
truth  of  this  assertion.  It  is  a  subject  of  deep  regret 
with  him  that  the  Church  of  England  ever  assumed 
such  a  position  or  officially  sanctioned  such  a  practice, 
but  that  she  did  do  so,  he  does  not  hesitate  honestly 
and  squarely  to  admit  in  his  Preface  to  Hooker's 
Works  affirming  that  it  is  ''notorious''  that  the 
extreme  Episcopal  claims  advocated  by  his  party 
were  not  maintained  by  the  Reformers,  and  that 
''numbers  had  been  admitted  to  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  of  England,  with  no  better  than  Presbyterian 
ordination."  (P.  Ixxvi.)  It  is  hardly  necessary  to 
add  to  this  fact,  what  is  but  a  necessary  corollary 
therefrom,  that  the  official  recognition  of  the  validity 
of  the  ordinations  of  these  non-episcopal  bodies  is 
synonymous  with  the  recognition  of  these  bodies 
themselves  as  true  "Churches.''  As  no  doctrinal 
position  of  the  Church  of  England  on  this  or  any 
other  matter  was  ever  subsequently  changed,  if  the 
words  of  later  Revisers  (especially  the  Revisers  of 
1661)  are  to  be  relied  upon  at  all,  it  is  a  foregone 


38         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

conclusion  that  the  Church  is  officially  bound  to  this 
position  to-day.  To  return  to  our  citation  of  facts, 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  year  1580,  again 
officially  set  forth  a  prayer  in  which  intercession  was 
made  in  behalf  of  "the  Churches  of  France,  Flanders, 
and  of  such  other  places  as  were  then  suffering  per- 
secution. "  (Proctor's  Hist.  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
p.  479,  Note.)  A  similar  prayer  set  forth  in  1590, 
just  ten  years  later,  beseeches  that  "forasmuch  as 
Thou  hast  promised  to  maintain  and  defend  the 
cause  of  Thy  Church  .  .  .  protect  and  strengthen 
Thy  Servants  our  brethren  in  France  that  are  now 
ready  to  fight  for  the  glory  of  Thy  Name  ...  so 
shall  that  proud  generation  have  no  cause  to  insult 
over  Thy  true  Church,  "  etc.  Again,  Canon  30  (1604) 
asserts  that  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  Church  of 
England  to  forsake  and  reject  {per  omnia  recedere) 
the  Churches  of  Italy,  Frajice,  Spain,  Germany,  or 
any  such  like  Churches,  in  all  things  which  they  held 
and  practised,"  etc., — a  statement  which  while  im- 
plying the  disagreement  of  the  Church  of  England 
upon  certain  points  both  with  the  Church  of  Rome 
and  the  above  named  Protestant  Churches,  none  the 
less  recognizes  all  of  them  as  ''Churches.''  In  a 
celebrated  work  entitled  Synopsis  Papismi,  which 
though  written  by  an  individual  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England  only,  was  afterwards  set  forth 
by  authority  of  the  Church  herself  as  expressing  her 
official  views,  a  number  of  the  non-episcopal  Protes- 
tant bodies  are  recognized  hy  name  as  true  Churches 
and  the  validity  of  their  ministries  endorsed.     To 


WHERE  THE  CPIURCH  STANDS         39 

quote:  ''Neither  is  it  true  that  there  are  no  Ministers 
but  by  the  ordination  of  Bishops,  for  this  were  to  con- 
demn all  those  Reformed  Churches  of  Helvetia,  Belgia, 
Geneva,  with  others  which  have  not  received  this  form  of 
Ecclesiastical  Government  .  .  .  so  that  we  doubt  not 
but  that  all  the  Reformed  Churches  professing  the 
Gospel  have  true  and  lawful  ministers,  though  they 
observe  not  all  the  same  manner  in  the  election  and  or- 
daining them.  And  this  is  the  general  consent  of  the 
Churches  themselves.''  (Synop.  Papismi,  vol.  vi., 
p.  368.)  Let  the  reader  note  well  that  this  is  not 
merely  the  opinion  of  the  author,  Dr.  Willet,  but 
of  the  Church,  for  the  entire  work  containing 
this  statement  was  issued  ''by  the  authority  of  His 
Majesty s  royal  letters-patent,''  and  was  further 
"seen  and  allowed  by  the  Lords  the  Reverend  Bishops, 
and  hath  also  ever  been  in  great  esteem  in  both  Universi- 
ties ;  and  also  much  desired  by  all  the  learned,  both  of 
our  Clergy  and  Laity,  throughout  our  dominions." 
Again,  the  Church  of  England  officially  endorsed  the 
statement  of  Dr.  Richard  Cosin  in  his  answer  to  the 
Puritan  work  entitled,  An  Abstract  on  Certain  Acts 
of  Parliament,  that  differences  merely  in  the  form  of 
government  did  not  impugn  the  integrity  of  "the 
Churches  of  Denmark,  Sweveland,  Poland,  Ger- 
many, Rhetia,  Vallis,  Tellina,  the  nine  Cantons  of 
Switzerland  reformed,  with  their  confederates  of 
Geneva,  of  France,  of  the  Low  Countries,  and 
of  Scotland."  Like  the  former,  this  work  was  also 
endorsed  by  the  Church  herself — "published  by 
authority.  "     {Vide  "An  Answer  to  an  Abstract,"  etc.. 


40         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

1584,  p.  58.  Quoted  in  Goode's  Work  on  Orders.) 
Again,  in  a  work  which  was  "perused  and  by  lawful 
authority  of  the  Church  of  England  allowed  to  be 
public,"  the  said  Church  officially  recognized  ''all 
the  neighbor  churches  christianly  reformed," — re- 
ferring to  the  wow-episcopal  bodies  on  the  Continent. 
This  work — Exposition  of  the  Articles,  by  Thomas 
Rogers,  thus  officially  endorsed,  Archbishop  Ban- 
croft "ordered  all  the  Parishes  in  his  Province  to 
supply  themselves  with" — a  fact  which  further 
proves  that  even  the  High  Churchmen  of  that  day 
(for  Bancroft  was  one  of  the  most  conspicuous)  did 
not  attempt  to  defend  the  extreme  principles  that 
are  advocated  to-day. 

Note 

Since  the  above  was  written,  our  attention  has  been  called  to  a 
criticism  which  is  occasionally  made  by  "Catholics"  in  regard  to  the 
statement  that  the  Church  of  Scotland,  referred  to  in  the  Bidding 
Prayer  of  1604,  was  Presbyterian.  A  recent  writer  in  the  Living 
Church  (Jan.  31,  19 14,  p.  473)  commenting  upon  a  statement  made 
by  the  Dean  of  Worcester  (Dr.  Ede)  to  the  same  effect,  asserts  with 
great  confidence  that  this  allegation  "has  been  shown  over  and  over 
again  to  be  nothing  but  a  fiction,  and  a  vulgar  error. "  He  declares 
that  "in  the  year  1600  'the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  was 
abolished  by  the  King'  (and  that)  Presbyterianism  was  not  estab- 
lished until  1696,  nearly  a  century  later  than  the  date  of  the  Canon. 
James  I.  of  England  had  created  in  1600  (he  means,  of  course,  when 
King  of  Scotland  only)  nine  dioceses  in  Scotland,  and  appointed 
Bishops  to  them;  these  Bishops  were  given  seats  as  such  by  the 
Parliament  of  Scotland.  .  .  .  The  Church  set  up  by  the  King,  and 
not  the  Presbyterian  body  is  the  Church  referred  to  in  the  Bidding 
Prayer."  Now  if  this  is  true,  if  Episcopal  Government  was  estab- 
lished in  Scotland  in  1600,  and  the  Bidding  Prayer  of  1604  referred 
to  this  Episcopal  Church,  and  if  the  Church  of  Scotland  continued 
to  be  Episcopal,  and  "  Presb3rterianism  was  not  established  until 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         41 

1696,  nearly  a  century  later  than  the  date  of  the  Canon,"  we  should 
like  to  ask  this  plain  question:  Why,  tJien,  was  it  necessary  to  conse- 
crate Bishops  for  Scotland  in  1610?  What  had  become  of  the  Epis- 
copacy which  the  King  had  established  just  ten  years  before  (in 
1600),  and  for  whose  preservation  the  English  Church  had  authorized 
the  prayer  in  question  only  six  years  before — especially  if  this  Epis- 
copacy was  not  overthrown,  nor  Presbyierianism  establislied,  until  i6q6? 
The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  there  is  no  warrant  for  this  assertion,  for 
it  is  a  fact  well  known  to  historians,  and  admitted  by  one  of  the  ablest 
exponents  of  High  Church  principles  (John  Henry  Blunt),  that  the 
attempt  of  the  King  here  cited  was  unsuccessful.  Though  he  made 
appointments  for  the  ofEce  of  the  Bishopric,  his  appointees  were 
never  consecrated,  nor  did  the  Church  of  Scotland  ever  admit  that 
they  possessed  any  spiritual  authority.  Parliament,  indeed,  assisted 
the  King  in  the  attempt,  and  despite  the  opposition  of  the  Kirk,  gave 
them  seats,  but  for  all  that,  the  Kirk  refused  to  recognize  their  Episco- 
pal authority,  they  exercised  no  Episcopal  functions,  and  could  not, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  attempt  to  do  so  as  they  were  never  conse- 
crated. If  they  had  been  consecrated  in  1600,  and  exercising  author- 
ity in  1604,  as  the  writer  implies,  there  would  never  have  been  any 
further  consecration  in  1610.  It  was  because  these  so-called  Bishops 
were  not  Bishops  in  reality,  had  tiever  liad  consecration,  had  never 
exercised  spiritual  authority,  nor  had  the  Kirk  consented  to  Episcopal 
government  until  1610,  that  for  that  very  reason  it  became  necessary 
in  that  year  (when  her  consent  was  finally  obtained)  that  such  conse- 
cration should  be  bestowed.  It  is  ridiculous,  therefore,  to  talk  about 
the  Bidding  Prayer  of  1604  referring  to  an  Episcopal  Church  in 
Scotland,  for  the  only  Episcopal  Church  existing  there  at  that  time 
was  one  that  officially  denounced  Episcopacy,  and  the  only  Bishops 
there,  were  men  who  had  never  been  consecrated  by  any  Bishop 
whatever.  Moreover,  we  know  that  James  himself  admitted  that  his 
mere  appointment  did  not  constitute  these  men  Bishops,  and  it  is 
notorious  that  they  were  ever  referred  to  derisively  as  "Tulchan 
Bishops,"  a  vulgar  expression  for  "dummies."  In  1604,  then,  the 
year  in  which  the  Bidding  Prayer  was  set  forth,  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land was  not  only  Presbyterian,  but  militantly  so,  in  defiance  of  the 
King.  Yet  it  was  formally  admitted  by  the  Church  of  England 
even  at  that  time  (when  prejudice  was  so  strong)  to  be  a  true  part  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 

As  the  whole  history  of  this  contest  between  James  and  the  Church 


42         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

of  Scotland  throws  light  on  some  other  matters  relative  to  the  main 
point  of  this  discussion,  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  go  into  it  a  little  further, 
and  in  doing  so,  we  shall  quote  extensively  from  this  same  well 
known  High  Churchman,  to  whom  we  have  referred  and  whose 
opinions  are  of  great  weight  with  "Catholics."  Says  John  Henry 
Blunt:  "  The  peculiar  course  which  the  Reformation  took  in  Scotland 
was  in  nothing  more  strange  than  in  its  results  as  to  the  episcopate. 
Some  of  the  old  Bishops  turned  with  the  times,  and  either  retained 
the  revenues  of  their  Sees,  as  did  Robert  Stuart,  Bishop  of  Caithness, 
and  Earl  of  Lennox,  or  made  over  these  revenues  to  some  of  their 
relatives,  as  did  Alexander  Gordon,  Bishop  of  Galloway:  m  both 
cases  ceasing  to  exercise  the  episcopal  office  although  retaining  the  episco- 
pal title.  As  these  old  Bishops  died  off,  nominal  successors  were 
sometimes  appointed  by  the  Crown,  or  the  Regents  acting  in  the 
name  of  the  Crown;  and  thus  there  were  titular  Bishops  of  ancient 
Sees  who  were  never  consecrated  nor  even  in  Priests^  Orders.  (They 
were  shrewdly  named  '  Tulchane  Bishops '  a  '  Tulchane '  or  '  Tul- 
chin '  being  a  stuffed  calf's  skin  set  up  in  sight  of  a  cow  to  persuade 
her  to  give  her  milk.)  This  continuance  of  a  nominal  Episcopate, 
side  by  side  with  the  Presbyterian  establishment  (mark  the  words) 
was  much  favoured  by  the  Court  party,  but  it  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  from  reasons  of  self-interest  as  regarded  the  ancient  revenues 
of  the  Sees,  or  in  the  hope  that  the  shadow  of  an  episcopate  might 
some  day  be  turtied  into  a  reality. ^^  "When  the  Young  King  James  VI. 
became  nominally  independent,  though  only  twelve  years  of  age,  in 
1578,  the  General  Assembly  of  preachers  took  much  bolder  action  in 
respect  to  these  titular  Bishops  than  they  had  ventured  to  take  while 
a  strong-minded  nobleman  was  Regent.  Meeting  at  Dundee  in 
July,  1579,  they  first  .passed  an  'ordinance'  declaring  that  the  office 
of  Bishop  had  no  warrant  in  the  Word  of  God.  .  .  .  After  this,  in 
1580,  they  issued  the  "National  Covenant,"  previously  referred  to, 
by  which  'tlie  government  of  the  Kirk  by  Bishops'  ...  is  'declared 
to  be  unlawful  within  this  Kirk. "...  This  opposition  of  the  Pres- 
byterian faction  to  the  free  action  of  the  Crown  .  .  .  gave  James  a 
lasting  hatred  of  Presbyterianism  .  .  .  and  when  he  succeeded  to 
the  Crown  of  England  he  took  measures  for  grafting  a  true  Episcopate 
upon  the  Kirk,  evidently  with  the  view  of  gradually  assimilating  the 
ecclesiastical  system  of  Scotland  to  that  of  England.  In  this  purpose 
the  King  was  probably  supported  by  a  strong  anti-revolutionary 
party  in  Scotland:  for  in  the  year  1606  the  Scottish  Parliament 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        43 

passed  an  Act  'for  the  restitution  of  Bishops'  [Note — this  was  two 
years  after  Canon  55,  the  Bidding  Prayer,  was  passed,  was  an  Act  of 
Pariiament  only,  and  did  not  alter  the  attitude  of  the  Kirk.]  The 
purpose  of  this  act  was  that  of  enabhng  the  Crown  to  restore  to  the 
titular  Bishops  such  portions  of  the  Estates  of  their  respective  Sees  as 
still  remained  in  its  hands.  In  the  same  year  (1606)  James  endeavored 
to  pave  the  way  for  the  restoration  of  Episcopal  Authority  by  pro- 
posing to  the  General  Assembly  that  the  titular  Bishops  should  act  as 
Moderators  or  Presidents  in  the  Presbyteries  within  their  Dioceses, 
thus  giving  them  much  more  power  in  the  administration  of  ecclesias- 
tical affairs.  This  proposition  was,  after  some  resistance,  adopted 
by  the  Assembly,  and  put  in  practice  throughout  the  Kirk.  {Even  at 
this  date,  let  it  be  noticed,  the  end  was  not  attained.  The  King's 
appointees  were  merely  permitted  to  occupy  the  Presbyterian  office 
of  '  Moderators. '  They  were  not  recognized  as  Bishops  either  by  the 
Kirk  or  the  King,  and  could  not  be  so  recognized  for  the  very  plain  reason 
that  they  had  7iever  been  Consecrated  Bishops.)  After  this  the  King 
frequently  urged  the  '  Bishops '  to  take  on  themselves  the  adminis- 
tration of  all  Church  aflfairs,  and  as  they  were  unwilling  to  do  so  without 
the  consent  of  the  Ministers,  an  Assembly  was  at  last  called  to 
consider  the  question  in  June,  1610.  ...  At  this  Assembly  nine 
resolutions  were  assented  to  which  practically  established  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Crown  and  the  Bishops.  .  .  .  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Episco- 
pate being  thus  restored,  James  I.  prepared  to  restore  it  to  its  proper 
spiritual  position  by  having  some  of  the  titular  Bishops  consecrated. 
Accordingly,  John  Spottiswoode,  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  Andrew 
Lamb,  Bishop  of  Brechin,  and  William  Couper,  Bishop  of  Galloway, 
were  summoned  to  London,  where  the  King  told  them  that  he  had 
restored  the  revenues  of  the  Bishoprics,  and  had  appointed  worthy 
men;  but  (note  the  following  words)  that  as  he  could  7iot  make  them 
Bishops,  nor  could  they  make  themselves  so,  he  had  called  them  to  Eng- 
land that  they  might  be  consecrated,  and  that  being  thus  made  true 
Bishops  instead  of  mere  titular  ones,  they  might  return  to  Scotland 
and  consecrate  the  rest."  It  will  be  seen  now  from  this  account,  given 
by  one  of  the  greatest  authorities  among  High  Churchmen,  that  the 
statements  of  Mr.  Hall  are  absolutely  without  foundation.  No 
Bishops  were  consecrated  for  Scotland  or  estabhshed  over  the  Church 
of  Scotland  until  1610,  ten  years  after  the  date  he  alleges,  and  six 
years  after  the  Bidding  Prayer  was  authorized.  Even  the  "jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Episcopate"  was  not  admitted,  according  to  Blunt,  until 


44         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

the  year  1610,  and  no  attempt  to  consecrate  Bishops,  until  their  law- 
ful jurisdiction  within  the  Church  had  been  established.  In  short, 
it  was  not  till  1606 — two  years  after  the  Bidding  Prayer  had  been 
authorized — that  the  Scottish  Parliament  even  yielded  to  the 
pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  it  and  passed  an  Act  "for  the  restitu- 
tion of  Bishops"  (the  very  wording  of  the  title  betraying  the  fact 
that  Bishops  had  not  been  restored  at  that  time)  and  even  then  the  Kirk 
held  out  against  the  measure,  nor  did  it  finally  surrender  until  June, 
16 10,  four  years  later,  when  it  finally  assented  to  the  "Nine  Resolu- 
tions." After  the  action  of  the  Scottish  Parliament  in  1606,  James 
succeeded  in  getting  the  Kirk  to  allow  his  appointees  to  preside  over 
their  Assemblies,  but  aside  from  the  fact  that  this  again  was  two 
years  after  the  Prayer  in  question  was  authorized,  and  so  can  affect 
our  argument  in  no  way  whatever,  aside  from  all  this,  we  repeat,  it 
was  even  then  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  they  were 
"Moderators"  or  Presidents  in  the  Presbyteries  only.  This  was  a 
strictly  Presbyterian  arrangement,  nor  did  James  or  any  one  else  in 
England  flatter  themselves  that  this  concession  meant  an  Episcopal 
form  of  Government  for  the  Church.  They  well  knew,  and  the  King 
admitted,  as  we  have  seen,  in  so  many  words,  that  they  were  not 
Bishops,  for  they  had  never  been  consecrated,  and  could  not,  there- 
fore, in  the  very  nature  of  things,  presume  to  exercise  episcopal 
functions.  They  were  simple  Presbyters  presiding  as  Presbyterian 
"Moderators"  over  a  strictly  Presbyterian  Church.  There  was  no 
Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland,  then,  before  1610,  and  the  petition  in  the 
Bidding  Prayer  of  1604  was  for  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland. 
Moreover,  what  is  thus  admitted  by  so  prejudiced  an  authority  as 
Blunt,  is  of  course  corroborated  by  numbers  of  other  writers  not  so 
hostile  to  the  cause  of  Presbyterianism.  We  need  mention  only  one 
of  these.  Neale,  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans  tells  us  that,  "In  the 
year  1580,  the  General  Assembly  with  one  voice  declared  Diocesan 
Episcopacy  to  be  unscriptural  and  unlawful.  The  same  year  King 
James,  with  his  family,  and  the  whole  nation,  subscribed  a  Confession 
of  Faith,  with  a  solemn  league  and  covenant  annexed,  obliging 
themselves  to  maintain  and  defend  the  Protestant  doctrine  and  the 
Presbyterian  Government.  After  this  the  Bishops  were  restored  by 
Parliament  to  some  parts  of  their  ancient  dignity;  and  it  was  made 
treason  for  any  man  to  procure  the  innovation  or  diminution  of  the 
power  and  authority  of  any  of  the  three  estates;  but  when  this  Act 
was  proclaimed,  the  Ministers  protested  against  it,  as  not  having  been 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         45 

agreed  to  by  the  Kirk.  In  the  year  1587,  things  took  another  turn, 
and  his  Majesty  being  at  the  full  age  of  twenty-one,  consented  to  an 
Act  to  take  away  the  Bishops'  lands  and  annex  them  to  the  crown. 
In  the  year  1590  it  was  ordained  by  the  General  Assembly  that  all 
that  bore  office  in  the  Kirk,  or  should  hereafter  do  so,  should  sub- 
scribe to  the  Book  of  Discipline.  In  the  year  1592,  all  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment whatsoever  made  by  the  King's  Highness,  or  any  of  his  pre- 
decessors, in  favor  of  Popery  or  Episcopacy,  were  annulled;  and,  in 
particular,  the  Act  of  May  22,  1584,  'For  granting  commissions  to 
Bishops  or  other  ecclesiastical  judges,  to  receive  presentations  to 
benefices,  and  give  collations  thereupon. '  This  act,  for  the  greater 
solemnity,  was  confirmed  again  in  1593,  and  again  this  present  year 
{1594),  so  that  from  this  time  to  16 10,  Presbytery  was  undoubtedly  the 
legal  establishment  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  as  it  had  been  in  fact  ever 
since  the  Reformation."  {Id.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  294,  295.)  These  facts 
effectually  dispose  of  the  objection  in  question.  They  also  lead  us  to 
speak  of  another  matter  of  even  more  vital  import  to  our  argument. 
It  is  a  very  significant  fact,  though  one  that  is  not  generally  known, 
that  even  in  the  transaction  of  16 10,  whereby  the  Kirk  was  finally 
induced  to  consent  to  Episcopal  Government,  such  consent  was  only 
obtained  after  the  Church  of  England  had  formally  agreed  that  the 
Episcopacy  to  be  established  should  be  modelled  after  that  particu- 
lar conception  of  the  Episcopate  which  many  Presbyterians  had  all 
along  regarded  as  admissible  (though,  for  practical  considerations 
unadvisable) ,  and  had  further  officially  acknowledged  the  essential 
validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  as  such, — admissions  which,  it  will 
readily  be  seen,  are  fatal  to  the  "catholic"  theory  of  the  Episcopate, 
and  their  further  contention  that  that  theory  represents  the  official 
view  of  the  Church.  In  order  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  such 
a  conception  of  the  Episcopate,  we  have  only  to  remind  our  readers 
that  the  Presbyterians  did  not  deny  that  in  the  beginning  a  Presiding 
Elder  or  Presbyter,  commonly  called  a  Bishop,  presided  over  the 
meetings  of  his  brother  Presbyters  in  the  capacity  of  a  "Moderator" 
or  Chairman  of  the  Assembly.  They  only  denied  that  such  Bishops, 
as  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  early  Church,  were 
any  thing  more  than  Chairmen  or  Moderators.  They  denied  that 
they  were  a  separate  "Order"  over  and  above  the  Presbyterate,  pos- 
sessing peculiar  and  inherent  powers.  They  denied  that  they  could 
act  in  any  official  capacity  in  independence  of  the  Presbytery,  or 
exercise  any  power  not  delegated  to  them  by  the  same,  and  that  in  the 


46    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

matter  of  ordination  specifically,  the  sovereign  power  being  resident 
in  the  Presbyters  as  a  body,  the  Bishop  only  conducted  the  ceremony, 
being  always  assisted  by  certain  of  his  fellow  Presbyters,  and  both 
of  them  merely  exercising  a  power  delegated  to  them  by  "the  ordaining 
Presbytery."  What  they  feared  in  the  Church  of  England  was  the 
tendency  to  overstep  the  bounds  of  this  primitive  arrangement. 
They  claimed  that  the  "Prelacy"  of  the  Church  of  England  was  not 
truly  representative  of  primitive  Episcopacy,  that  too  much  govern- 
ing power  had  already  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishops,  and 
that  although  the  Church  herself,  had  not,  indeed,  asserted  that  the 
Episcopate  was  a  separate  "Order"  from  the  Presbyterate,  yet  that 
individual  utterances  were  beginning  to  be  heard  to  that  effect,  and 
there  was  positive  danger  that  such  a  theory  would  eventually  be 
maintained,  a  presentiment  which,  as  we  now  see,  was  too  well 
founded.  In  view  of  such  a  menace,  Scotchmen  resisted  the  idea  of 
Episcopacy  to  the  last,  and  when  forced  to  yield,  they  did  so  only 
after  the  Church  of  England  had  given  official  assurance  that  such  a 
conception  of  the  Episcopate  as  they  were  willing  to  recognize,  and  such 
a  pattern  only,  would  he  established.  Nor,  in  acceding  to  this  de- 
mand, did  the  Church  of  England  in  any  way  stultify  her  official 
position,  for  as  we  have  seen  (contrary  to  the  opinions  of  our  "catho- 
lic" friends)  the  Church  of  England,  as  a  Church,  i.e.  officially,  has 
never  endorsed  this  exclusive  view  of  the  Episcopate  at  any  time,  either 
before  or  since  that  date.  Accordingly,  when  the  Nine  Resolutions, 
forming  the  basis  of  the  union,  were  drawn  up  in  June,  1610,  it  was 
explicitly  agreed  to  by  the  Church  of  England  that  when  the  so- 
called  "titular"  Bishops,  appointed  by  the  King,  should  have  been 
duly  consecrated,  they  were  to  be  recognized  as  "Moderators"  of 
the  various  Presbyteries  within  their  jurisdiction,  and  that,  while  all 
ordinations  were  to  be  placed  "substantially"  in  their  hands,  it  was 
only  in  the  sense  that  they  were  the  heads,  or  representatives  of 
''THE  ORDAINING  PRESBYTERY,"  and  that  no  ordinations 
were  to  be  consummated  by  them  alone,  but  only  with  the  consent 
of  the  Presbytery,  and  with  the  actual  co-operation  of  Presbyters  in  the 
ordaining  act.  We  have  clear  evidence  of  this  from  a  number  of 
authorities,  among  them  again  being  the  unwilling  witness,  John 
Henry  Blunt.  In  recording  the  details  of  the  transaction,  he  tells  us 
that  "  (2)  The  titular  Bishops  being  ex  officio  Moderators  of  all 
Presbyteries  within  their  Dioceses,  Ordinations  of  Ministers  were 
placed,  substantially  in  their  hands  as  the  head  of  THE  ORDAIN- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        47 

JNG  PRESBYTERY."  {Did.  Sects,  Heresies,  etc.,  Art.  "Scottish 
Kirk,"  p.  544.)  To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Caldcrwood 
who,  in  citing  the  Article  on  Ordination,  quotes  what  is  apparently 
the  exact  language  of  the  original — that  the  Bishop  "being  assisted  by 
some  such  of  the  Mitiisters  of  the  bounds  where  he  is  to  serve,  as  he  will 
assume  to  himself,  he  is  then  to  perfyte  the  whole  act  of  ordination." 
(Hist.  Kirk  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.,  p.  loo.)  Spottiswoode  also  gives 
like  testimony  (vide.  Hist.  Ch.  Scotland,  vol.  iii.,  p.  211.)  We  may 
also,  in  this  connection,  and  as  evidence  of  the  complete  subjection 
of  the  Bishops  to  the  authority  of  the  Assembly,  cite  the  further 
testimony  of  Lawson  that  "Bishops  were  to  be  subjected  'in  all 
things  concerning  their  life,  conversation,  office  and  benefice  to  the 
censure  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  if  found  guilty  to  be  deposed 
by  advice  and  consent  of  the  King.'  "     {Epis.  Ch.  of  Scotland.) 

Finally,  not  only  were  these  the  terms  of  the  agreement  between  the 
two  Churches,  but  when  the  actual  Consecration  of  the  Scottish 
Bishops  was  consummated,  the  same  year,  it  was  carried  out  in 
complete  accordance  with  the  conditions  thus  laid  down.  In  the 
conference  of  the  English  Bishops,  preliminary  to  the  act  of  Conse- 
cration, the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  prior  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion of  the  candidates,  was  actually  raised  by  Bishop  Andrews,  as  a 
necessary  consideration  before  Episcopal  Consecration  could  be 
conferred,  and  the  opinion  was  then  formally  and  unanimously 
rendered  that  such  ordination  was  valid,  and  it  was  in  accordance  with 
this  OFFICIAL  Decision  of  the  Church  of  Enlgand  {which  she  had 
already  pledged  in  the  Nine  Resolutions  of  Agreement)  that  THE 
EPISCOPATE  WAS  CONFERRED.  Says  Spottiswoode  himself 
(one  of  the  very  candidates  in  question  whose  testimony  for  that 
reason  cannot  be  gainsaid),  "a  question  in  the  meantime  was  moved 
by  Dr.  Andrews  Bishop  of  Ely,  touching  the  consecration  of  the 
Scottish  Bishops,  who,  as  he  said,  'must  first  be  ordained  Presbyters, 
as  having  received  no  ordination  from  a  Bishop.'  The  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Bancroft,  who  was  by,  maintained  Uhat  thereof 
there  was  no  necessity,  seeing  where  Bishops  could  not  be  Itad,  the  ordina- 
tion given  by  the  Presbyters  must  be  esteemed  lawful;  otherwise  that  it 
might  be  doubted  if  there  were  any  lawful  vocation  in  most  of  the  re- 
formed Churches.'  This  applauded  to  by  the  other  Bishops,  Ely 
acquiesced,  and  at  the  day,  and  in  the  place  appointed  the  three 
Scottish  Bishops  were  consecrated."  {Hist.  Ch.  Scotland,  vol.  iii., 
p.  209.)     The  above  incident  is  too  often  quoted,  and  too  generally 


48         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

admitted  as  a  fact,  to  need  to  be  substantiated  by  any  additional 
quotations,  but  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  High  Churchmen  Hke 
Russell,  the  biographer  of  Spottiswoode,  and  John  Henry  Blunt, 
while  freely  admitting  that  this  was  the  position  assumed  by  the 
Bishops  of  the  Enghsh  Church,  acting  ofBcially,  in  the  name  of  the 
Church,  condemn  the  act  as  illegal,  if  not  invalid.  Their  very  criti- 
cism, therefore,  is  at  once  a  candid  admission  of  all  that  we  are  here 
contending  for  (viz. :  that  the  Church  of  England  did  then  and  there 
officially  recognize  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  in  one  of  the 
most  important  events  of  her  ecclesiastical  history),  and  that  their 
own  confessed  attitude  toward  the  measure  (which  is  simultaneously 
the  attitude  of  "CathoHcs"  to-day)  is  self-evident  proof  that  the 
position  of  both,  so  far  from  representing  the  authoritative  view  of  the 
Church  of  Enlgand,  as  they  would  fain  contend,  is  in  irreconcilable 
conflict  therewith.  Not  only,  then,  was  official  recognition  of  the 
vaHdity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  openly  and  unquaHfiedly  given 
in  the  year  1610,  and  the  essential  principle  of  the  Presbyterian  dis- 
cipline left  undisturbed,  but  it  is  further  to  be  noted  that  even  in 
1662  when,  after  the  downfall  of  the  Episcopal  Church  during  the 
Interregnum,  Episcopacy  was  again  restored,  the  terms  of  its  re- 
establishment  in  Scotland  were  precisely  the  same.  Once  more, 
even  as  in  1610,  there  was  great  opposition  made  to  it,  as  the  Scottish 
people  generally,  were  never  really  in  favour  of  it,  but  again,  as  in 
the  former  period,  they  were  won  over  by  the  assurance  that  no 
essential  change  in  their  discipline  was  contemplated,  as  the  Church 
of  England  had  given  official  assurance  that  a  moderate  Episcopacy 
only  would  be  established,  one  that  did  not  deny  the  inherent  power 
of  Presbyters  to  ordain,  or  invalidate  in  any  sense  the  former  Minis- 
try or  Discipline  of  the  Kirk.  Thus,  we  find  Archbishop  Leighton 
himself,  justifying  and  explaining  the  measure  at  that  very  time,  to 
the  people  of  Scotland,  in  a  work  entitled — A  Modest  Defence  of 
*' Moderate"  Episcopacy,  As  established  in  Scotland  at  the  Restoration 
of  King  Charles  II.  He  says,  "Episcopal  Government,  managed 
in  conjunction  with  Presbyters,  Presbyteries,  and  Synods,  is  not  con- 
trary to  the  rule  of  Scripture,"  etc.  .  .  "is  not  contrary  to  that  new 
Covenant,  which  is  pretended  by  so  many  as  the  main,  if  not  the  only 
reason  of  their  scrupling.  .  .  .  And,  as  both  these  assertions,  I 
believe,  upon  the  exactest  (if  impartial  and  dispassionate)  inquiry, 
will  be  found  to  be  in  themselves  true,  so  they  are  owned  by  the 
generality  of  the  Presbyteries  in  England,  as  themselves  have  pub- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS    49 

lished  their  opinions  in  print,  with  this  title,  Two  Papers  of  Proposals, 
Humbly  presented  to  His  Majesty,  by  tJie  Reverend  Ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  Persuasion — Printed  at  London,  anno  1661.  Besides 
other  passages  in  these  papers  to  the  same  purpose,  in  p.  li  and  12, 
are  these  words:  'And  as  these  are  our  general  ends  and  motives, 
so  we  are  induced  to  insist  upon  the  form  of  a  synodical  government, 
conjunct  with  a  fixed  presidency  or  Episcopacy  for  these  reasons: 
.  .  .  That  tJie  prelacy  disclaimed  in  tliat  Covenant  was  the  engrossing 
the  SOLE  power  of  ORDINA  TION  and  jurisdiction,  and  exercising 
the  WHOLE  discipline,  absolutely  by  Bishops  themselves,  and  their 
delegates,  Cliancellors,  Surrogates,  and  officials,  etc.,  excluding  wholly 
the  PASTORS  of  particmar  Churches  from  all  share  in  it.'  And  there 
is  one  of  prime  note  amongst  them,  who,  in  a  large  treatise  of  Church 
Government,  does  clearly  evidence,  that  this  was  the  mind  both  of 
the  Parliament  of  England,  and  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  West- 
minster, as  they  themselves  did  expressly  declare  it  in  the  admitting 
of  the  Covenant,  '  That  they  understood  it  not  to  be  against  ALL  Epis- 
copacy, but  only  against  that  particular  frame,  as  it  is  worded  in  the 
article  itself.'  (Baxter  on  Church  Government,  p.  iii.  C.  1.  tit.,  p. 
275.  'An  Episcopacy  desirable  for  the  reformation,  preservation, 
and  peace  of  the  Churches,  a  fixed  president,  durante  vita.'  See  p. 
297,  330,  ibid.).  .  .  .  That  this  difference  should  arise  to  a  great 
height,  may  seem  somewhat  strange  to  any  man  that  calmly  con- 
siders, that  there  is  in  this  Church  720  change  at  all,  neither  in  the 
doctrine  nor  worship:  no,  nor  in  the  substance  of  the  DISCIPLINE 
ITSELF.  But  when  it  falls  on  matter  easily  inflammable,  a  little 
spark  how  great  a  fire  it  will  kindle!  ....  II.  When  the  house 
of  Lords  took  the  Covenant,  Mr.  Thomas  Coleman  that  gave  it 
them,  did  so  explain  it,  and  profess  that  it  was  not  their  intent  to 
covenant  against  ALL  Episcopacy;  and  upon  this  explication  it  was 
taken;  and  certainly  the  Parliament  was  most  capable  of  giving 
the  true  sense  of  it,  seeing  that  it  was  they  that  did  impose  it.  .  .  . 
That  very  scruple  was  made  by  some  members  of  Parliament,  and 
resolved,  with  consent  of  their  brethren  in  Scotland,  that  the  Covenant 
was  only  intended  against  PRELA  CY  as  it  was  then  in  being  in  Eng- 
land, leavinp^  a  latitude  for  Episcopacy,  etc."  {Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  546 
et  seq.)  Moreover,  to  all  this  evidence,  must  be  added  the  further 
fact  that  in  the  very  first  Ordinal  set  forth  for  the  use  of  the  new 
Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland  in  1620,  following  the  teaching  of 
Cranmer  and  all  the  Elizabethan  Reformers  after  him,  following 


50         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

what  had  been  then,  and  was  at  this  time  (1629)  the  official  view 
of  the  Church  of  England  herself,  it  was  distinctly  asserted  that 
there  were  but  two  orders  only  (in  the  technical  sense  of  the  word) 
in  the  Ministry  of  Christ's  Church,  viz.: — (i)  BisJiops  {or  Pres- 
byters); and  (2)  Ministers  {or  Deacons) —  See  Proctor's  Hist.  Book  oj 
Com.  Prayer,  p.  94. 

In  conclusion,  then,  we  may  affirm  that  it  is  perfectly  evident 
from  the  above  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  tendency  at  that 
time  toward  an  exclusive  theory  of  the  Episcopate,  a  tendency  which 
doubtless  justified  the  fear  of  "prelacy"  so  called,  it  is  absolutely 
certain  that  this  tendency  was  a  movement  advocated  by  individuals 
only.  It  never  had  the  authoritative  sanction  of  the  Church.  In 
short,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  both  in  her  official  teachings, 
as  well  as  in  her  official  dealings  with  the  Scottish  Kirk,  the  Church  of 
England  then  stood  squarely  and  unqualifiedly  for  a  moderate  view 
of  Episcopacy  only — for  that  view  of  the  Episcopate,  in  other  words, 
taught  by  the  Reformers  and  reasserted,  time  and  again,  in  her 
public  acts  and  formularies  throughout  the  trying  period  of  the 
Reformation.  Nor  is  there  a  shred  of  evidence  to  justify  the  supposition 
that  what  was  then  official  doctrine  has  now  ceased  to  be  official.  Aside 
from  the  fact  that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  this,  such  a 
supposition  implies  that  the  present  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
England,  instead  of  dating  from  the  days  of  the  Reformation,  as  is 
universally  acknowledged  by  friend  and  foe  alike,  dates  from  some 
period  subsequent  to  the  Restoration  of  1662,  a  proposition  which 
does  not  deserve  consideration.  If  then  the  "Catholic "  theory  of  the 
Episcopate  and  of  the  Church  (which  depends  upon  it  as  a  corollary) 
is  so  diametrically  opposed  to  this  official  view  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  seventeenth  century,  it  follows  that  it  is  equally 
irreconcilable  with  the  official  teaching  of  that  Church  to-day  and 
this,  no  matter  how  popular  "catholic"  principles  may  be  with  a 
great  portion  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Church,  or  how  many 
volumes  defending  such  principles  may  be  falsely  set  forth  in  the 
name  of  that  Church.  Such  pretensions  cannot  possibly  change  the  facts. 

We  may  summarize  this  portion  of  the  argument  then  as  follows: 
The  Church  of  England  in  the  seventeenth  century,  acting  in  her 
official  capacity,  made  the  following  clear  and  specific  admissions, — 
1st.  She  admitted  the  validity  of  the  former  Presbyterial  ordina- 
tions of  the  Kirk;  2d.  She  formally  conceded  the  demand  of  the 
Kirk  that  from  henceforth  "ordinations  of  ministers  were  placed. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         51 

substantially,  in  their  (the  Bishops')  hands  as  the  head  of  the  ordaining 
Presbytery  only."  (Resolution  2).  3d.  In  the  first  Ordinal  de- 
signed for  the  use  of  this  new  Episcopal  Church  in  1620,  oflBcially 
"adopted  by  the  Bishops,"  she  repeated  the  declaration  so  often 
made  by  Cranmcr  and  the  English  Reformers  generally  that  there 
were  but  two  Orders  only  in  the  Ministry,  viz.: — "Bishops  (or  Pres- 
byters) and  Ministers"  {i.e.  Deacons),  Proctor's  Hist.  Bk.  Com. 
Prayer,  p.  94.  Note.  Blunt's  Diet.  Heresies,  etc.,  p.  545.  These 
facts  are,  of  course  fatal  to  the  whole  "catholic"  conception  of  the 
Episcopate  as  in  any  sense  representing  the  official  view  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  surprising  thing  is  that  they  are  not  better 
known  especially  when  even  such  a  well-known  authority  as  Blunt 
in  his  Annotated  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  a  work  as  popular  as  it  is 
scholarly,  distinctly  tells  us  (p.  566)  that  *'it  was  not  till  the  close  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century,  that  the  distinction  between  the  Orders  of  Bishops 
and  Priests  was  asserted"  even.  This  statement  is  unquestionably 
true.  The  only  trouble  with  it  is  that  it  is  not  the  whole  truth,  for 
even  then  it  was  asserted  by  individuals  only,  and  not  by  the  Church 
as  such.  Nor,  as  we  propose  to  show,  has  it  ever  been  asserted  by  the 
Church  as  such,  but  is  even  to  this  day  an  unofficial  assertion  only  of 
individual  Churchmen  of  so-called  "catholic"  tendencies.  Even  in 
1620,  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  Church  reasserted  the  view  of  the 
Reformers  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were  one  and  the  same 
Order,  as  her  official  opinion,  and  we  have  only  to  turn  to  so  late  a 
work  as  the  ninth  edition  of  the  Encyclopcedia  Brilannica,  Article 
"Order,"  p.  844,  to  find  these  words:  "The  Church  of  England 
expressly  recognizes  the  Diaconate  and  the  Priesthood,  but  no  others, 
as  distinct  Orders,"  thus  amply  vindicating  our  contention  that  the 
official  view  of  the  Church  to-day  is  the  same  as  it  was  in  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries.  As  the  Revisers  of  1662  distinctly  state 
in  the  Preface  of  their  Prayer  Book,  no  alteration  in  any  doctrine  was 
made  by  them.  Thus  the  official  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  regard  to 
the  Episcopate,  even  as  in  regard  to  all  other  matters,  is  exactly  the 
same  to-day  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth.  We  shall  speak  more 
particularly  of  this  matter  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  For  the  present 
we  merely  desire  to  mention  it,  and  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  these 
objections  are  fatal  to  "catholic"  conceptions  of  the  official  teaching 
of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  subject  of  the  validity  of  Presby- 
terian ordinations,  and  the  integrity  of  Presbyterian  bodies  as  true 
parts  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 


Ill 


OTHER  DECLARATIONS,  OFFICIAL 
AND  NON-OFFICIAL 


53 


Ill 


OTHER    DECLARATIONS,    OFFICIAL 
AND  NON-OFFICIAL 

IT  will  be  observed  that  the  foregoing  evidence 
has  all  been  gathered  from  official  declarations 
of  the  Church  of  England  herself  or  from  acts 
and  utterances  officially  endorsed  by  her.  We  have 
purposely  refrained  from  quoting  any  passages  of  a 
private  nature,  even  from  the  works  of  the  very 
highest  authorities  in  the  Church  which  have  not 
been  formally  endorsed  by  the  Church  herself, 
acting  in  her  official  capacity.  If  now  we  should  go 
further  and  attempt  to  supplement  these  with  all 
the  private  opinions  expressed  by  individual  church- 
men who  lived  contemporaneously  with  these  official 
declarations,  we  should  swell  this  essay  to  an  in- 
ordinate length.  Numberless  quotations  of  this 
kind  might  be  adduced.  Practically  all  the  Reformers 
and  nearly  all  the  divines  of  prominence  in  the 
English  Church  from  the  days  of  Cranmer  down  to 
within  very  recent  times,  who  have  touched  upon  the 
matter  at  all,  have  recognized  the  non-episcopal 
bodies  as  true  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
their  non-episcopally  ordained  ministers  as  having 

55 


56         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

been  validly,  even  if  irregularly,  ordained.  The  list 
of  those  who  have  in  one  way  or  another  expressed 
these  opinions  includes  such  names  as  Cranmer, 
Ridley,  Latimer,  Hooper,  Jewel,  Bradford,  Whitgift, 
Philpot,  Pilkington,  Whittaker,  Fulke,  Willet, 
Bilson,  Sutcliffe,  Calfhill,  Hooker,  Saravia,  Mason, 
Babington,  Bridges,  Field,  Davenant,  Francis  White, 
Thomas  White,  Bancroft,  Cosin,  Burnet,  Andrews, 
Rainolds,  Bramhall,  Usher,  Hall,  Downham,  Stilling- 
fieet.  Seeker,  Wake,  Tomline,  and  numbers  of  others.  * 
It  is  not  until  the  days  of  the  Restoration  that  there 
is  any  apparent  change  of  sentiment  on  the  subject, 
but  even  then,  it  is  only  an  opinion  of  individuals, 
and  never  affects  the  official  attitude  of  the  Church 
herself,  which  attitude  has  continued  unchanged 
from  the  days  of  the  Reformation  downwards.  It  is 
quite  true  that  men  like  Archbishop  Laud,  in  their 
zeal  to  rid  the  Church  of  that  Puritanism  that  had 
wcllnigh  overthrown  episcopal  authority  in  England, 
did  many  things  and  said  many  things  which,  looked 
at  on  the  surface,  appear  to  countenance  many 
practices  and  teachings  of  our  "Catholic"  friends 
to-day.  But  whatever  these  men  may  have  wanted 
to  do  in  the  way  of  altering  the  official  teaching  of 
the  Church,  we  must  ever  be  careful  to  distinguish 
between  what  they  tried  to  accomplish,  and  what  they 

'  Those  who  desire  to  see  some  of  the  evidence  submitted  by  these 
writers  are  referred  to  Goode's  work  On  Orders;  The  True  Historic 
Episcopate,  by  Mason  Gallagher;  and  a  little  work  by  the  Author 
entitled,  Apostolic  Succession  and  the  Problem  of  Unity,  University 
Press,  Sewanee,  Tenn. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         57 

actually  did  accomplish — two  wholly  different  things. 
That  the  official  attitude  of  the  Church  toward  these 
non-episcopal  bodies  and  the  validity  of  their  min- 
istries was  actually  changed  at  the  time  of  the 
Restoration  is  a  fiction  pure  and  simple  which  has 
not  one  shred  oj  evidence  to  support  it,  as  we  now 
propose  to  show.  To  begin  with,  there  is  no  clear 
evidence  that  even  the  High  Churchmen  of  this 
period  {i.  e.  prior  to  the  year  1661)  held,  even  as 
individuals,  the  extreme  opinions  entertained  sub- 
sequently by  the  Tractarians,  and  by  our  "Catholic  " 
brethren  to-day,  on  the  subject  of  the  Episcopate. 
Laud  is  the  only  one  of  prominence  that  appears  at 
times  to  have  favoured  these  views,  but  if  he  is  to  be 
judged  hy  his  own  words,  even  he  did  not  go  to  the 
extent  of  absolutely  "unchurching"  the  non-episco- 
pal bodies,  as  the  Tractarians  did,  and  as  the  "Catho- 
lic" party  now  proposes  to  do.  "I  have  endeavored 
to  unite  the  Calvinists  and  Lutherans, "  says  he, 
"nor  have  I  absolutely  unchurched  them.  I  say 
indeed  in  my  book  against  Fisher,  according  to  St. 
Jerome,  No  Bishop,  no  Church;  and  that  none  but 
a  Bishop  can  ordain,  except  in  cases  oj  inevitable 
necessity;  and  whether  that  be  the  case  in  the  foreign 
Churches,  the  world  may  judge. "  (Reply  to  Fisher, 
q.  Gallagher,  Prim.  Eirenicon,  p.  188.)  Here  then 
is  the  worst  that  can  be  said — here  are  the  words  of 
the  most  extreme  High  Churchman  of  his  day — the 
man  who  is  popularly  supposed  to  have  inaugurated 
a  fundamental,  doctrinal  change  in  the  official  view 
of  the  Church, — yet  even  he  admits  that  "m  cases 


58         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

(?/  inevitable  necessity''  non-episcopal  ordination  is 
legitimate,  and  adds  that  in  the  case  of  the  non- 
episcopal  bodies  of  his  day,  the  world  might  judge 
whether  such  necessity  existed  or  not,  but  for  his 
own  part  he  did  not  absolutely  unchurch  them.  If 
these  words  mean  anything  at  all  then,  it  will  be  seen 
that  our  "catholic"  brethren  cannot  legitimately 
claim  even  Archbishop  Laud  in  support  of  their 
extreme  attitude  toward  the  non-episcopal  bodies, 
for  unlike  them,  he  admitted  the  possibility  of  non- 
episcopal  ordinations  as  being  valid  under  some  cir- 
cumstances. He  said  distinctly  that  he  would  not 
assume  the  responsibility  of  "unchurching"  them, 
the  very  thing  that  our  "catholic"  friends  have  not 
scrupled  to  do.  Whatever  else  he  may  have  said  and 
done,  then,  they  cannot  claim  that  he  excluded  these 
bodies  from  the  Catholic  Church.  If  then  such  an 
extreme  partisan  of  Episcopacy  as  Archbishop  Laud 
could  not  bring  himself  to  assume  such  an  attitude, 
and  yet  if  even  he  could  be  so  harsh  in  the  denuncia- 
tion of  these  bodies  as  to  cause  himself  to  be  publicly 
"reproved"  by  the  University  of  Oxford  for  his 
radical  utterances,  how  in  the  name  of  reason  can  it 
be  imagined  that  the  authorities  of  the  Church  who 
thus  reproved  him,  went  to  such  an  extreme?  The 
truth  is,  there  is  no  evidence  that  even  the  most 
extreme  churchmen  of  this  period  ever  went  so  far 
as  positively  to  "unchurch"  these  bodies,  as  so 
many  of  their  successors  are  doing  to-day.  It  is 
quite  certain  that  the  Church  as  a  body,  i.e.,  officially, 
never  presumed  to  do  so.     Speaking  of  individuals' 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS    59 

opinions  only,  however,  we  repeat  that  if  even  Arch- 
bishop Laud  himself  did  not  hold  such  views,  it  is 
very  improbable  that  any  other  churchman  of 
prominence  did  so.  Bancroft,  for  example,  certainly 
took  high  ground  on  the  matter  of  Episcopacy — 
such  high  ground  that  he,  too,  like  Laud,  was 
attacked  as  an  extremist.  Yet  even  he  never  went  the 
length  of  the  Tractarians  or  of  the  "Catholics"  of 
to-day.  As  we  have  seen,  when  about  to  consecrate 
the  Scottish  Bishops,  he  eKpressed  his  individual 
opinion  as  to  the  validity  of  their  former  Presby- 
terian ordination  in  no  uncertain  language,  and  that 
this  opinion  was  "applauded"  by  all  the  rest  of  the 
Bishops,  individually,  who  then,  as  a  collective  body, 
proceeded  officially,  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  to 
confer  the  Episcopate  upon  this  basis.  Numberless 
utterances  of  similar  import,  both  as  to  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  ordination  and  the  integrity  of  non- 
episcopal  Churches,  can  be  cited  from  the  works  of 
nearly  all  the  Caroline  divines — even  those  most 
prominently  concerned  in  the  Revision  of  1662.  It 
will  be  seen,  then,  that  the  modern  exclusive  view 
of  the  Episcopate  which  makes  Ministry,  Sacrament 
and  Church  itself  to  depend  for  their  very  being  upon 
this  Order,  is  so  utterly  foreign  to  the  teaching  of  the 
English  Reformers,  as  well  as  to  all  the  official  acts 
and  utterances  of  the  Church  itself  of  which  they,  of 
course,  were  the  authors,  and  even  so  foreign  to  the 
individual  opinions  of  the  more  conspicuous  divines 
of  the  Church  for  at  least  200  years,  that  it  is  simply 
amazing  that,  when  a  man  undertakes  to  make  such 


6o         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

a  statement  within  the  Church  to-day,  he  should  be 
called  upon  to  defend  his  position  at  all.  For  what 
may  seem  so  strange  to  those  who  confine  their 
theological  reading  to  the  works  of  a  certain  class  of 
Anglican  divines  only,  is  simply  common  talk  with 
historians  and  scholars  outside  the  fold,  and,  unf or- 
nately, is  not  unknown,  however  much  ignored,  by 
the  best  scholars  within  it.  In  short,  if  what  we  have 
just  asserted  seems  incredible,  we  will  not  attempt  to 
reiterate  our  own  assertions,  but  will  ask  a  few 
"catholic"  authorities  to  speak  for  us.  In  regard  to 
what  the  English  Reformers  thought  of  this  exclu- 
sive view  of  the  Episcopate,  so  popular  to-day,  no 
less  an  authority  than  Keble  (one  of  the  leaders  of 
the  Oxford  movement)  tells  us  that  "it  might  have 
been  expected  that  the  defenders  of  the  English 
hierarchy  against  the  first  Puritans  should  take  the 
highest  ground,  and  challenge  for  the  Bishops  the 
same  unreserved  submission  on  the  same  plea  of 
exclusive  apostolical  prerogative,  which  their  adver- 
saries' feared  not  to  insist  on  for  their  Elders  and 
Deacons.  //  is  notorious,  however,  that  such  was  not  in 
general  the  line  preferred  by  Jewel,  Whitgijt,  Bp. 
Cooper,  and  others,  to  whom  the  management  of  that 
controversy  was  entrusted  during  the  early  part  of 
Elizabeth's  reign.  ...  //  is  enough  for  them  to  show 
that  the  government  by  Archbishops  and  Bishops  is 
ancient  and  allowable;  they  never  venture  to  urge  its 
exclusive  claim,  or  to  connect  the  Succession  with  the 
validity  of  the  Sacraments. "  (Preface  to  Hooker's 
Works.)     Remember,  these  are  not  our  words.    It  is 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         6i 

the  Rev.  John  Keble  who  tells  you  this.  It  is  he  who 
tells  you  that  these  men  did  not  ''connect  the  Succes- 
sion {i.e.  of  Bishops)  with  the  validity  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, "  hence  with  the  validity  or  integrity  of  a  Church, 
as  he  (Keble)  and  his  followers,  the  Tractarians  and 
"CathoHcs"  of  to-day  have  been  accustomed  to  do. 
Add  to  this  also,  the  words  of  John  Henry  Blunt, 
another  champion  of  "exclusive"  Episcopacy,  that 
"z7  was  not  until  the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  that 
the  distinction  between  the  Orders  of  Bishops  and 
Priests  was  asserted.''  (Annot.  Bk.  Com.  Prayer, 
p.  693,  ed.  Button  &  Co.,  1894.)  He  means,  of 
course,  that  before  this  date  Bishop  and  Priest  were 
regarded  as  of  the  same  Order.  Then  what  is  there  in 
my  words  which  should  appear  strange?  It  is 
simply  the  testimony  of  ''catholic"  authorities 
themselves.  If,  therefore,  our  opponents  desire  to 
show  that  the  Church  has  changed  front  on  this 
subject,  and  holds  a  diametrically  different  opinion 
to-day,  they  must  prove  that  this  fundamental 
doctrinal  change  was  brought  about  at  some  point 
of  time  after  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century"; 
since  their  own  authorities  admit  it  was  not  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  before  this  period.  This  is 
their  only  hope.  Now  it  is  precisely  this  assumption, 
so  absolutely  necessary  for  the  vindication  of  their 
views,  yet  so  absolutely  without  support  in  actual 
fact,  which  they  seek  to  encourage.  Thus,  by 
implication,  Blunt  would  have  us  believe  that  what 
was  the  universally  accepted  doctrine  of  the  Church 
down  to  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,"  was 


62    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

subsequently,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  officially 
revoked,  so  that  the  Church  of  England  to-day 
officially  maintains  a  doctrine  of  the  Episcopate 
which  is  absolutely  the  reverse  of  that  she  held 
during  the  Sixteenth  Century.  He  does  not,  of  course, 
actually  make  such  a  statement  (since  he  cannot), 
but  he  assumes  it.  Now  it  is  precisely  this  fiction  we 
propose  to  lay  bare.  We  wish  to  assert  most  positively, 
that  there  is  absolutely  not  one  atom  of  truth  in  the 
assumption  that  this,  or  any  other  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
was  officially  changed  either  at  the  close  of  the  Sixteenth 
Cefitury,  or  at  any  subsequent  period  in  the  history  of  the 
Church.  The  Revision  of  1662  did  not,  and  could  not 
have  changed  it,  as  is  popidarly  imagined,  for  the  plain 
reason  that  the  Revisers  of  1662  tell  us  themselves  in  so 
mayty  words  {see  Preface  to  Prayer  Book)  that  they 
had  not  attempted  to  change  any  ''established  doctrine'^ 
of  the  Church  in  anything  that  they  did,  which  simply 
7ncans  that  any  construction  placed  on  their  acts  to 
that  effect  to-day,  has  no  authority  whatever.  That 
individual  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the  Episco- 
pate may  have  begun  to  change  at  the  end  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century,  is  one  thing,  but  that  the  Church 
as  a  Church  ever  changed  front  officially  on  that  or 
any  other  doctrine,  either  then,  or  subsequently,  is  a 
supposition  which  has  absolutely  no  evidelice  in  its 
support.  We  repeat,  it  is  a  generally  admitted  fact 
that  the  only  Revision  of  importance  that  ever  took 
place  after  the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  was 
the  Revision  of  1662.  Since  the  men  who  made  this 
revision    themselves    inform    us    most    clearly    and 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         63 

emphatically  that  not  one  of  all  the  amendments  then 
introduced  affected  any  "established  doctrhie  or 
laudable  practice  of  the  Church  of  England''  but  were 
concerned  merely  with  minor,  unesseiitial  matters, 
it  follows  inevitably  that  the  view  of  the  Episcopate, 
which  neither  regarded  it  as  an  Order  separate  from 
the  Presbyterate,  nor  held  it  to  be  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  Sacraments  and  the  being  of  the 
Church,  was  in  no  way  affected,  but  continued,  as 
formerly,  the  official  doctrine.  There  is  no  way  to 
escape  this  conclusion.  The  doctrinal  view  of  the 
Episcopate,  then,  which  was  entertained  by  the 
Reformers,  and  everywhere  assumed  in  the  official 
acts  and  utterances  of  the  Church  before  the  close 
of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  continued  to  be  the  official 
view  of  the  Church  afterwards.  It  was  never  sub- 
sequently altered  by  the  Chuich,  and  is  still  the 
official  view,  as  has  been  recently  stated  in  the  ninth 
edition  of  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica  in  a  passage 
already  referred  to:  "The  Church  of  England 
expressly  recognizes  the  Diaconate  and  the  Priest- 
hood, but  no  others,  as  distinct  Orders. "  (Art.  Orders, 
p.  844.)  Right  here  we  may  say  that  what  misleads 
so  many  persons  to-day  in  regard  to  the  number  of 
Orders  recognized  by  the  Anglican  Church,  and 
which,  we  may  add,  has  tended  to  increase  the  errone- 
ous impression  that  the  Revisers  of  1662  introduced 
an  important  doctrinal  change  (in  spite  of  their 
emphatic  assertions  to  the  contrary)  is  the  statement 
of  the  opening  words  of  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal :  "  It 
is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy  Scrip- 


64    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

ture  and  ancient  Authoi^,  that  from  the  Apostles' 
time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of  Ministers  in 
Christ's  Church, — Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.'' 
This  apparently  justifies  the  assumption.  In  view 
of  such  a  clear  and  explicit  recognition  of  three  Orders, 
such  statements  as  that  of  the  Britannica,  seem  to  be 
flatly  contradicted,  and  the  common-place  asser- 
tions of  our  ordinary  Church  text-books  and  Sunday 
School  Manuals,  amply  vindicated.  This  is  a  mere 
cobweb.  In  fact  it  is  only  another  instance  of  the 
widespread  ignorance  of  the  public  in  regard  to  the 
real  history  of  this  word  "Order"  and  the  evident 
unwillingness  upon  the  part  of  most  of  our  popular 
writers  to  enter  into  it.  To  begin  with,  the  men  who 
inserted  this  word  into  the  Preface  were  not  the 
Revisers  of  the  Seventeenth  Century  at  all,  but  the 
Reformers  oj  the  Sixteenth  Century — the  very  men  whom 
we  know  on  ''Catholic''  authority  did  not  regard  the 
Episcopate  as  a  distinct  Order  from  the  Presbyter  ate.  ^ 
How  then  do  we  explain  the  matter?  The  answer  is 
simple,  and  known  to  every  student  of  the  subject. 
The  Reformers  did  not  mean  by  "Order"  what  is 
now  technically  understood  by  that  word.  As  used 
by  "catholics"  and  High  Churchmen  to-day,  it 
signifies  a  class  of  Ministers  specially  set  aside  by 
Divine  Command,  and  endowed  with  specific  spiri- 
tual gifts  peculiar  to  itself.     It  is  in  this  sense  only 

'  The  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  was  indeed  expanded  by  the  Revisers 
of  1662,  but  the  word  in  question  was  not  then  introduced.  It  was 
placed  in  the  very  first  Preface  in  1549,  and  was  repeated  in  each 
successive  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         65 

that  it  has,  or  can  have,  any  bearing  on  the  exclusive 
claims  of  the  Episcopate,  which  is  the  matter  under 
discussion.  That  is  to  say  it  is  only  in  so  far  as  the 
word  "Order,"  when  applied  to  the  Episcopate, 
implies  that  the  latter  is  endowed  with  certain 
inalienable  gifts  and  functions,  peculiarly  and  ex- 
clusively its  own,  and  not  shared  in  by  the  Pres- 
byterate  or  any  other,  that  it  has  any  bearing  on  the 
question  before  us.  Thus,  the  Episcopate,  in  the 
modem  technical  sense,  is  a  Divinely  differentiated 
department  of  the  Ministry,  to  which  has  been 
exclusively  committed  the  specific  and  inalienable 
powers  of  ordination  and  government,  something  to 
which  neither  of  the  other  two  Orders  can  lay  claim. 
Hence,  when  the  word  is  met  with  in  the  Ordinal  or 
elsewhere,  the  modem  advocate  of  this  theory,  hesi- 
tates not  to  read  into  it  this  common  technical 
interpretation.  While  this  is  unquestionably  the 
received  interpretation  of  the  word  to-day,  it  had  no 
such  technical  significance  either  in  ancient  days,  or  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation,  or  at  the  time  the  Preface  to 
the  Ordinal  was  written.  It  was  not  the  meaning  of  the 
Reformers  who  penned  these  lines  or  of  those  who 
revised  the  Preface  in  1662.  It  is  as  foolish  for  any 
one  to  imagine  that  the  Reformers  placed  this 
modem  meaning  upon  the  word,  as  it  would  be  to 
imagine  that  they  placed  the  modem  meaning  upon 
the  word  "prevent"  when  they  used  it  in  the  Collect 
for  the  Seventeenth  Sunday  after  Trinity.  The  one 
assumption  is  just  as  inexcusable  as  the  other,  for  it  is 
well  known  to  scholars  that  the  ancients,  and  the 


66    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Reformers  after  them,  used  the  word  "Order" 
synonymously  with  the  words  "office,''  ''grade,'* 
''degree,''  "rank,"  etc.  In  short,  they  used  it  in- 
differently in  reference  to  any  distinction  of  minis- 
terial function,  whether  of  Divine  or  human  author- 
ity. What  we  now  refer  to  as  the  "offices"  (not 
"Orders")  of  Archbishop,  Archdeacon,  Sub-Deacon, 
Reader,  Exorcist,  Acolyte,  Door-Keeper,  etc.,  were 
all  designated  by  them  indifferently  as  "Orders"  of 
the  Ministry.  Says  Jeremy  Taylor,  "it  is  evident 
that  in  antiquity,  'ordo'  and  'gradus*  were  used 
promiscuously.  BaG^Jicx;  was  the  Greek  word, 
and  for  it  the  Latins  used  'ordo'.  .  .  .  They  are 
all  of  the  same  name,  and  the  same  consideration,  for 
order,  distance,  and  degree,  amongst  the  fathers; 
gradus  and  ordo  are  equally  affirmed  of  them  all,  "  etc. 
(Episcopacy  Asserted,  Taylor's  Works,  vol.  vii.,  pp. 
121,  122.)  It  is  this  indiscriminate  use  of  the  word 
for  practically  any  ecclesiastical  office  or  function 
that  has  led  to  bewildering  confusion,  whenever  the 
attempt  is  made  by  the  uninformed  reader  to  discover 
the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  upon  the  subject.  Thus 
some  writers  speak  of  two,  some  of  three,  some  of 
five,  seven,  eight  and  even  ten  "Orders"  in  the  Church. 
No  conclusion  is  possible,  therefore,  from  the  mere 
use  of  the  word  itself  in  the  writings  of  the  ancients. 
We  can  only  hope  to  settle  the  question  before  us  by 
further  inquiring  what,  out  of  all  these  "Orders," 
they  regarded  as  primitive,  necessary  or  essential  in 
the  Church.  The  utter  futility  of  attempting  to 
draw  any  conclusion  from  the  mere  use  of  the  word 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS    67 

itself,  is  nowhere  more  beautifully  illustrated  than 
in  Bishop  Jewel's  famous  Defence  of  the  Apology 
which  he  wrote  in  behalf  of  the  English  Church. 
"St.  Hierome, "  says  he,  "writing  upon  the  prophet 
Esay,  reckoneth  only  five  Orders  or  degrees  in  the 
whole  Church;  the  Bishops,  the  Priests,  the  Deacons, 
the  Enterers  or  Beginners,  and  the  Faithful:  and 
other  Order  of  the  Church  he  knoweth  none.  .  .  . 
Clemens  saith,  'The  mysteries  of  the  holy  secrecies 
be  committed  unto  three  Orders,  that  is,  unto  the 
Priests,  unto  the  Deacons,  and  unto  the  Ministers; ' 
and  yet  Deacons  and  Ministers,  as  touching  the 
name,  are  all  one.  Dionysius  likewise  hath  three 
Orders,  but  not  the  same;  for  he  reckoneth  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons.  And,  whereas,  M.  Harding 
maketh  his  account  of  four  of  the  less  or  inferior 
Orders,  meaning  thereby  Ostiarios,  Lectores,  Exor- 
cistas,  Acoluthos,  the  door-keepers,  the  readers,  the 
conjurers,  and  the  waiters  or  followers;  his  own 
Ignatius  addeth  thereto  three  other  Orders,  Cantores, 
Laboratores,  Confitentes,  the  chanters  or  singers,  the 
laborers,  and  the  confessors.'  Clemens  added 
thereto  Catechistas,  the  informers  or  teachers  of  them 
that  were  entering  into  the  faith.  A  Httle  vain  book, 
bearing  the  name  of  St.  Hierome,  De  Septem  Ordini- 
bus  Ecclesice,  addeth  yet  another  Order,  and  calleth 
them  Fossarios,  that  is,  'the  Sextines, '  or  overseers 
of  the  graves.  And,  lest  you  should  think  that  he 
reckoneth  this  Order  as  amongst  other  necessary 
offices  to  serve  the  people,  and  not  as  any  part  of 
the    Clergy,    his    words    be    these:    Primus  .  .  .  in 


68    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

clericis  Fossariorum  Or  do  est,^  .  .  .  'The  first  Order 
of  the  Clergy  is  the  Order  of  the  Sextines'  etc.  .  .  . 
Likewise  to  the  three  greater  Orders,  Isidorus 
addeth  another  distinct  and  several  Order  of  Bishops; 
unto  whom  agreeth  Gulielmus  Altisiodorensis  and 
Gottofredus  Pictaviensis,  as  appeareth  by  Johannes 
Scotus.  Again,  of  the  other  inferior  Orders  St. 
Hierome  leaveth  out  the  Conjurers  and  waiters:  St. 
Ambrose  leaveth  out  the  waiters  and  door-keepers: 
the  Canons  of  the  Apostles  leave  out  Conjurers, 
"Waiters,  and  Door-Keepers,  all  three  together.  In 
this  so  great  dissension  and  darkness,  what  way  will 
M.  Harding  take  to  follow?  By  Anacletus  there  be 
kvo  Orders;  by  Clemens  and  St.  Hierome  three;  by 
Hierome  counterfeit  seven ;  by  others  eight ;  by  others 
nine ;  by  others  ten. "  {Id.,  pp.  272,  273.)  From  this 
it  will  be  readily  seen  that,  whatever  the  opinions  of 
the  ancients  respecting  the  primitive  or  necessary 
degrees  of  the  Ministry,  nothing  can  be  gathered 
concerning  it  from  the  mere  use  of  the  word  "Ordo" 
in  their  writings,  as  they  attached  no  technical 
significance  to  it,  such  as  we  are  accustomed  to  do 
to-day.  That  the  Reformers  likewise  employed  it 
in  this  same  general  and  ambiguous  way,  and  that 
in  the  very  article  now  before  us  (viz.:  the  Preface 
to  the  Ordinal)  not  only  they,  but  the  Revisers  of 
1662  after  them  used  it  likewise  in  the  same  broad 
and  indifferent  sense  and  not  in  the  modern,  tech- 
nical sense  in  which  our  "Catholic"  brethren  are 
accustomed  to  employ  it,  shoiild  be  obvious  from 
the  very  passage  in  question.     The  very  next  line 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         69 

of  the  Preface  reads:  "Which  offices  were  evermore 
had  in  such  reverend  estimation,"  etc.  Their 
meaning  therefore  is  as  clear  as  day.  Both  the 
Greek  and  the  Roman  Churches  had  many  Orders 
(i.  e.  offices,  or  degrees)  in  their  ministries,  but  out 
of  all  these  Orders  or  Offices,  the  Revisers  declared 
that  only  three  had  been  always  and  everywhere 
received  from  the  days  oj  the  Apostles  downward,  viz.: 
— the  offices  of  Bishop,  Priest,  and  Deacon.  This 
fact  would  be  evident  to  any  one  who  would  read 
Holy  Scripture  and  Ancient  Authors.  They  proposed, 
they  said,  to  preserve  these  three  Offices,  or  Orders 
in  the  Church  of  England.  They  make  no  further 
statement  than  this  m  the  Preface.  They  do  not  go 
into  any  explanation  of  the  technical  distinctions 
between  these  three  grades  or  offices.  They  merely 
state  it  as  a  fact  that  they,  in  contradistinction  to  all 
the  rest,  have  existed  from  the  beginning  and  have 
been  generally  received.  In  short,  it  is  not  in  the 
Preface,  but  in  the  rubrics  prefixed  to  the  several 
services  of  the  Ordinal  (q.  v.)  that  this  matter  of  the 
technical  distinctions  existing  between  the  offices, 
or  orders  is  referred  to  at  all.  There  we  find  some- 
thing very  different  from  what  these  modern  com- 
mentators would  lead  us  to  imagine.  When  the 
Revisers  come  to  formulate  the  Rites  and  Ceremonies 
of  ordination  to  these  various  orders  or  offices,  they 
take  particular  pains  to  specify  by  Rubric  which  of 
them  are  ^'necessary''  in  the  Church,  and  which  are 
not.  In  short,  they  take  particular  pains  to  specify 
by  Rubric  that  the  office  or  order  of  Deacon,  and  the 


70         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

office  or  order  oi  Priest  are  ^'  necessary^'  in  the  Church, 
and  they  further  as  significantly  omit  to  assert  the 
same  of  the  third  office  or  order,  the  Episcopate. 

This  simply  means  that  in  their  estimation  the 
essential  or  necessary  Offices — the  true  Orders  (in  our 
modern  sense  of  the  word) — were  the  Diaconate  and 
Preshyterate  only.  These  two,  but  not  the  Episcopate, 
they  declared  were  "  wece^^arj'  .  .  .  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,"  and  they  further  deemed  the  knowledge  of 
this  fact  to  be  of  such  importance  that  they  required 
that  a  sermon  be  preached  at  the  ordination  of  every 
Deacon  and  Priest  to  emphasize  it,  and  so  keep  it 
always  before  the  mind  of  the  public.  Moreover,  be 
it  remembered,  it  is  the  Revisers  of  1662  that  empha- 
size this  fact  by  Rubric — the  very  men  who,  because 
they  were  living  after  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century" — ^hence  at  the  time  when  (according  to 
Blunt)  the  distinction  between  the  Orders  of  Bishop 
and  Priest  was  first  asserted — are  supposed  to  have 
introduced  this  fundamental  doctrinal  change  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Church.  So  far  from  being  true,  then, 
this  interpretation  of  "Catholics"  is  not  only  the 
reverse  of  the  actual  facts,  but  obviously  the  reverse. 
The  truth  is  that  before  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century"  the  opinion  that  Bishops  and  Priests  were 
of  the  same  Order  (modern  sense)  was  so  universally 
received,  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  introducing 
the  Rubrics  in  question  at  all.  As  no  body  in  the 
Chiu-ch  ever  thought  of  holding  that  the  "order"  of 
a  Bishop  was  anything  more  than  an  office,  never 
thought  of  claiming  any  exclusive  or  Divine  differ- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         71 

entiatlon  between  the  Episcopate  and  the  Presby- 
terate,  as  was  held  between  the  latter  and  the 
Diaconate,  no  attention  was  paid  to  the  matter  one 
way  or  another  in  the  Sixteenth  Centu^3^  When, 
after  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  this  claim 
began  to  be  asserted  for  the  first  time  by  some 
individuals,  it  then  became  necessary  for  the  Church 
to  express  herself  officially  upon  the  subject.  This 
she  did  in  1662  by  placing  special  Rubrics  before 
the  Ordination  Services  of  Deacons  and  Presbyters 
calling  attention  to  the  necessity  of  these  Orders  in 
the  Church,  and  as  significantly  omitting  such  a 
Rubric  before  that  of  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop. 
To  put  the  matter  briefly,  then,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land officially  recognizes,  out  of  all  the  various 
Orders  or  Offices  of  antiquity,  three  only  to  have 
been  "catholic"  or  practically  universal  in  the 
Church  from  the  Apostles'  time,  which  three  Orders, 
or  Offices  she  proposes  to  perpetuate.  Of  these 
three,  however,  she  again  further  declares  that  two 
only  are  really  "necessary  ...  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,"  viz.:  the  Diaconate  and  the  Presbyterate. 
This  means  again  that,  speaking  technically ,  or  in 
the  modern  sense,  these  two  only  are  ''Orders,''  the 
third  being  (technically)  an  office,  or  function  only  of 
the  Presbyterate,  to  which  a  godly  Presbyter  is 
''consecrated''  or  "ordained,"  but  not  "ordered." 
Moreover,  the  clear  distinction  which  they  made 
between  these  last  terms  affords  still  further  proof 
of  our  assertion.  The  words  "making,"  "ordering," 
"ordaining,"  "consecrating,"  are  not  used  carelessly 


72         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

or  indifferently  here  in  the  Ordinal.  They  have  a 
history,  and  are  here  employed  with  precision.  Thus 
it  will  be  observed  that  the  word  ^'ordering''  is  used 
in  reference  to  the  appointment  of  both  Deacons  and 
Priests,  but  not  in  regard  to  Bishops,  whereas  the 
word  "ordaining"  is  used  indifferently  in  regard  to 
all  three. ^  Now  when  we  come  to  look  into  the 
matter,  we  find  that  the  reason  why  this  last  word  is 
used  indiscriminately  in  all  three  offices  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  general  term,  referring  to  any  kind 
of  ecclesiastical  appointment  or  commission,  and 
having  no  specific  or  peculiar  significance.  Thus,  in 
ancient  days,  it  was  not  only  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons  who  were  ''ordained,"  but  likewise  Sub- 
deacons,  Acolytes,  Readers,  Exorcists,  Doorkeepers, 
etc.  The  same  is  still  the  case  in  the  Roman  and 
Greek  Churches.  There  are  eight  Orders  or  Offices  in 
the  Roman  Church  to-day,  and  in  each  the  candidate 
is  '^ordained"  thereto.  In  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions, the  Canons  of  Nicasa,  Chalcedon,  Ancyra, 
Neo-Caesarea,  Antioch,  Laodicea,  etc.,  the  original 
Greek  word  translated  "ordain"  is,  in  nearly  every 
instance  yzi^oxovkfu.  This  word  is  used  indiffer- 
ently with  reference  to  all  the  so-called  "Orders," 
whether  major  or  minor.  That  is  to  say,  whether 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  or  whether  Sub- 
deacons,  Acolytes,  Readers,  Exorcists,  etc.,  are  in- 

'  The  word  "ordain"  does  not  occur  in  the  title  of  the  Office  for 
Deacons,  but  does  occur  in  Second  Rubric  of  said  Office:  "Such  as 
desiie  to  be  ordained  Deacons."  It  is  therefore  used  in  all  three 
Offices  indifferently. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         73 

tended,  all  are  ''ordained''  to  their  respective  offices. 
Hence  the  mere  fact  that  Bishops  are,  in  the  Ordinal, 
said  to  be  "ordained"  as  well  as  "consecrated" 
signifies  nothing  at  all.  For  not  only  are  Priests  and 
Deacons  likewise  "ordained,"  but  so  also  Readers, 
Acolytes,  Doorkeepers,  etc.  While  the  word  "or- 
dain" thus  refers  generally  to  any  form  of  ecclesi- 
astical appointment,  and  is  therefore  used  here 
indifferently,  in  accordance  with  primitive,  catholic 
custom,  in  all  three  Offices,  yet  when  oiir  Revisers 
come  to  specify  the  particular  kind  of  ordination  or 
appointment  conferred,  they  are  careful  to  use  the 
more  specific  terms — ''making,''  "ordering,"  "con- 
secrating." Thus,  the  Church  ordains  Deacons  in  the 
particular  sense  of  "making"  or  creating  them,  i.  e. 
by  Divine  fiat  causing  a  man  who  has  no  ministerial 
office  at  all,  to  become  or  be  created  a  Minister,  one 
empowered  with  a  peculiar  spiritual  function,  not 
possessed  by  laymen;  whereas,  she  later  on  ordains 
this  Deacon  a  Priest  in  the  particular  sense  of 
*'  ordering  "  i.  e.  spiritually  differentiating  him  again 
from  the  Diaconate,  setting  him  apart  into  another 
and  higher  "Order,"  class  or  category.  When  she 
comes  to  "ordain"  this  Presbyter  a  Bishop,  however, 
she  ordains  him  in  neither  one  of  the  foregoing  senses. 
That  is  to  say,  neither  in  the  sense  of  "making"  or 
creating  him  something  that  he  was  not  before  nor 
again  in  the  sense  of  "ordering, "  or  differentiating  him 
into  a  higher  class  or  category  distinct  from  the 
Presbyterate,  but  simply  in  the  sense  of  "consecrat- 
ing," that  is  solemnly  blessing,  or  dedicating  him  for 


74         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

certain  pastoral  duties.  She  commissions  him  to 
exercise  certain  powers  and  perform  certain  functions 
for  and  in  behalf  of  his  Order  and  of  the  Church 
generally,  of  which  he  is  the  chosen  head  and  repre- 
sentative. Thus  we  see  that  the  Ordinal  itself,  as 
it  stands  to-day,  only  recognizes  two  Orders  in  the 
technical  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  only  Deacons  and 
Priests  that  are  ^^ ordered^'  or  differentiated  into 
distinct  classes.  It  is  these  two  Orders  only  that  she 
officially  declares  in  her  Rubrics  to  be  "necessary  .  .  . 
in  the  Church  of  Christ. "  Bishops,  according  to  the 
Ordinal  itself  are  not  "ordered,"  or  set  over  against 
these  two  in  a  third  class  or  category  by  themselves. 
They  are  merely  consecrated  Presbyters,  i.  e.  Presby- 
ters specially  dedicated  to  the  performance  of  certain 
functions,  but  still  Presbyters.  They  are  still  of  the 
same  Order  (technically)  as  all  other  Presbyters,  and 
for  that  very  reason  nothing  is  said  of  their  being 
"necessary  .  .  .  in  the  Church  of  Christ. "  So  again, 
not  only  does  the  Ordinal  confine  the  terms,  "order- 
ing'' to  the  first  two  grades  of  the  Ministry  (see 
heading — "The  Ordering  of  Deacons,"  and  "The 
Ordering  of  Priests"  as  against  "The  Consecration  of 
Bishops")  but  Art.  xxxvi.  repeats  the  distinction, 
speaking  of  "The  Book  of  Consecration  of  Bishops, 
and  Ordering  of  Priests  and  Deacons. "  While  all  are 
"ordained,''  therefore,  only  two  are  "ordered"  or 
set  apart  as  essentially  distinct  and  necessary  grades 
of  the  Ministry.  Whence  again,  we  see,  that  in 
spite  of  the  popular  impression  to  the  contrary,  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  is  unquestionably  correct 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         75 

and  most  certainly  expresses  the  official  view  of  the 
Church  when  it  declares  that  "the  Church  of  Eng- 
land expressly  recognizes  the  Diaconate  and  the 
Priesthood,  but  no  others,  as  distinct  Orders;  Bishops 
and  Archbishops  are  'ordained  and  consecrated, ' "  z.  e. 
not  '^ ordered.'" 

In  short,  the  Prayer  Book  knows  nothing  whatever 
about  the  "Ordering"  of  a  Bishop,  but  only  of  a 
Deacon  and  a  Priest,  hence  it  knows  nothing  of  an 
"Order"  of  Bishops.  The  Bishopric  is  an  Office 
(not  an  Order)  to  which  certain  Presbyters  are 
Consecrated  (not  Ordered).  Even  this  is  not  all. 
To  emphasize  still  more  clearly  the  identity  of 
Bishops  and  Presbyters  in  point  of  Order,  the  Re- 
visers of  1662  took  the  passages  of  Scripture  author- 
ized by  all  three  of  the  former  Prayer  Books  (viz. : — 
Pr.  Books  of  1549,  1552,  1559)  to  be  read  at  the 
Ordering  of  Priests,  and  directed  that  the  same  should 
henceforth  be  read  at  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop. 
Hence  not  only  has  the  Church  herself  officially 
identified  the  "Bishops''  of  I.  Tim.  Hi.,  with  Presbyters, 
and  the  "Elders''  or  Presbyters  of  Acts  xx.,  ly,  with 
Bishops,  but  our  own  good  High  Church  brethren 
continue  at  this  very  hour,  whenever  a  Bishop  is 
consecrated,  to  read  with  the  gravest  satisfaction,  as 
particularly  appropriate  for  the  occasion,  a  passage 
referring  to  "Elders"  {i.  e.  Presbyters);  and 
relating  how  St.  Paul,  after  having  called  together 
these  "Elders"  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  had  bidden 
them  to  take  heed  to  the  flock  over  which  they  had 
been   appointed   "Bishops,"   apparently  in  blissful 


76 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 


ignorance  of  what  it  is  they  are  reading.  To  make 
the  matter  still  clearer,  we  present  herewith  a 
diagram  of  the  passages  appointed  to  be  read  as 
Epistles  in  the  various  editions  of  the  Prayer  Book. 


Pr.  Bks. 


Ordering  of  Priests, 


Consecration  of  Bishops. 


1549 


1552 


1559 


1662 


Acts  XX.,  17  (Of  Elders  =  Bishops) 

or 
I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 


Acts  XX.,  17  (Of  Elders  =  Bishops) 

or 
I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 


Acts  XX.,  17  (Of  Elders  =  Bishops) 

or 
I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 


Ephes.  iv.,  7   (Of  Apostles,  Pro- 
phets, Evangelists, 
Pastors,  Teachers) 


I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 


I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 


I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 


I.  Tim.  iii.  (Of  "Bishops") 

or 
Acts  XX.,  17  (Of  Elders  =  Bishops] 


If  it  be  kept  in  mind  that  I.  Tim.  iii.  relates  only  to 
the  duties  and  qualifications  of  those  called ' '  Bishops  " 
in  the  New  Testament,  while  those  spoken  of  as 
^'Elders'*  are,  in  Acts  xx.,  ly,  identified  with ''Bishops," 
the  force  of  these  statements  will  be  appreciated. 
[Ex.  (i)  "If  a  man  desire  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  he 
desireth  a  good  work.  A  Bishop  then  must  be 
blameless,"  etc.,  — I.  Tim.  iii.;  Again,  (2)  "From 
Miletus  Patd  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  Elders 
(or  Presbyters)  of  the  Church.  And  when  they  were 
come  to  him,  he  said  unto  them.  .  .  .     Take  heed 


\\rHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         77 

therefore  unto  yoiirselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  Bishops" 
(IxtaKOTCous) ' ; —  Acts  XX.,  17.] 

It  will  be  readily  seen  from  the  above  that  the 
compilers  of  our  first  three  Prayer  Books  undoubtedly 
understood  the  "Bishops"  referred  to  in  I.  Tim.  iii. 
to  be  identical  with  both  the  Presbyters  and  Bishops 
of  the  present  day.  That  is  they  regarded  the  two 
as  constituting  the  same  Order  of  ministers.  They 
used  this  Epistle  indifferently  for  the  Ordering  of  a 
Priest  or  for  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop; — a 
position  abundantly  justified  by  the  alternate  passage 
Acts  XX.,  17,  wherein  those  called  "Elders,"  or 
Presbyters  are  clearly  identified  with  those  called 
"  Bishops. "  Nor  w^as  their  position  the  least  changed 
by  the  Revision  of  1662,  for  while  the  authors  of  that 
Revision  saw  fit  to  substitute  Ephes.  iv.,  7  in  place 
of  the  former  Epistles  (a  selection  absolutely  color- 
less and  indefinite  as  regards  the  point  in  question) 
yet  they  nevertheless  not  only  retained  the  Epistle 
formerly  used  at  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop  in  that 
office,  but  further  took  the  selection  hitherto  used 
exclusively  at  the  Ordination  of  a  Priest  (Acts  xx.,  17). 
This  selection  identified  the  offices  of  Presbyter  and 
Bishop.     They  placed  it  in  the  office  of  the  Conse- 


'  It  is  a  mere  quibbla  to  object  that  the  word  is  translated  some- 
tinies  "overseers,"  for  this  is  only  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  tTiaKoiroi.^ 
or  English  "  Bishops."  It  is  sufHcient  to  observe  that  eiricrKdirovs  is  the 
Greek  original  in  this  passage  and  that  the  Revised  Version  trans- 
ates  it  "Bishops,"  and  the  Revised  Version  has  been  recognized 
officially  by  the  Church. 


78         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

cration  of  a  Bishop,  a  measirre  absolutely  inexplicable 
if  not  for  the  express  purpose  of  identifying  the  two, 
for  the  alternate  selection  (I.  Tim.  iii.),  containing 
a  most  full  account  of  the  qualifications  for  such  an 
Office,  and  altogether  free  from  any  embarrassing 
reference  to  Elders  or  their  identification  with 
Bishops,  would  alone  have  been  amply  sufficient 
for  any  other  purpose.  Add  to  all  this  the  facts 
already  adduced  as  to  the  special  headings  and  Ru- 
brics introduced  into  the  Ordinal  by  the  Revisers  of 
1662,  emphasizing  the  opinion  that  there  were  but 
two  Orders  "necessary''  or  essential  in  the  Church, 
viz. :  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  and  we  believe  that  to 
every  fair-minded  person,  who  has  really  followed 
the  argument,  the  evidence  must  be  conclusive.  We 
may,  then,  summarize  the  whole  matter  as  follows: 
(i)  Nothing  can  be  clearer  to  any  one  reading 
the  New  Testament  attentively  than  that  the  per- 
sons referred  to  as  "Elders'*  and  "Bishops"  were  one 
and  the  same  Order.  This  fact  was  not  only  asserted 
by  the  English  Reformers  generally,^  but  is  prac- 
tically the  unanimous  opinion  of  modern  scholars.  ^ 

'  It  was  officially  asserted  by  them  as  early  as  1537  {Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man)  and  again  officially  1543  {Necessary  Doctrine  and 
Erudition,  etc.)  and  frequently  reasserted  later  on  in  their  private 
writings. 

»  Hatch,  Lightfoot,  Sanday,  Harnack,  Schaflf,  Briggs,  Fisher,  and 
many  others.  Even  Gore  admits  this  fact.  Says  Prof.  Fisher: 
"Respecting  the  rise  of  the  Episcopate  there  is,  at  the  present  day,  a 
near  approach  to  a  Consensus  among  scholars  in  the  various  Protes- 
tant Churches."  "Within  the  covers  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
terms  Presbyter  and  Bishop  are  synonymous."  {Beginnings  of 
Christianity,  p.  551.) 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         79 

(2)  Nothing  is  clearer  than  that  the  Church  of 
England  herself  officially  endorsed  this  view: 

(a)  By  using  the  passage  in  I.  Tim.  iii.,  relating 
to  "Bishops"  alike  in  the  services  of  the  Ordering  of 
a  Presbyter  and  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop  and 
again  by  using  the  passage  in  Acts  xx.,  17,  which 
identifies  Elder  and  Bishop,  sometimes  in  the  one 
service,  sometimes  in  the  other. 

(b)  By  using  the  word  ''Ordering''  {i.  c.  placing 
the  candidate  in  a  separate  ''Order''  or  Class),  only 
before  the  Ordination  of  a  Deacon  and  a  Priest,  and 
NOT  before  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop.    And, 

(c)  By  placing  special  Rubrics,  in  these  two 
services  (viz.:  the  Ordination  of  Deacons  and  of 
Priests)  asserting  that  these  two  Orders  were  "Nec- 
essary" in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  requiring 
sermons  to  be  preached  emphasizing  that  fact,  but 
significantly  Omitting  to  place  any  such  Rubric 
before  the  service  of  the  Consecration  of  a  Bishop. 
This  is  in  itself  a  fiat  contradiction  oj  the  whole  point  of 
the  ^'Catholic"  contention  that  the  Episcopate  and  the 
Episcopate  ALONE  is  "Necessary"  or  Essential 
i7i  the  Church. 

It  is  a  curious  and  significant  commentary,  there- 
fore, upon  the  opinions  of  our  "catholic"  brethren, 
that  the  very  "Order"  which  they  claim  to  be  not 
only  necessary,  but  exclusively  necessary  in  the 
Church  (necessary  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church), 
is  the  only  one  of  the  three  which  the  Church  signifi- 
cantly refrains  from  declaring  necessary,  and  the  two 
remaining  ones,  which  they  deem  of  only  secondary 


8o    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

importance,  she  declares  to  be  "necessary" — so 
necessary,  in  fact,  that  at  the  ordination  of  every 
Deacon  and  Priest  she  requires  a  special  sermon  to  be 
preached  calling  attention  to  their  necessity  in  the 
Church.  From  this  again,  therefore,  it  will  be  ob- 
vious to  our  readers  how  far  "catholic"  teaching 
really  represents  the  official  view  of  the  Church. 

With  these  facts  clearly  in  mind,  then,  we  are  in  a 
position  to  understand  the  attitude  of  the  Church  of 
England  toward  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Seventeenth  Century.  We  see  that 
it  was  no  surrender  of  principle  whatever  that  led 
her  to  acknowledge  the  inherent  power  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  the  Scottish  Kirk  to  ordain  (2d  Resolu- 
tion of  the  Assembly)  as  one  of  the  basic  principles 
of  unity,  or  any  unworthy  compromise  upon  the  part 
of  Archbishop  Bancroft  in  accepting  the  Presbyterian 
ordination  of  the  Scottish  candidates  for  the  Bishop- 
ric as  valid.  As  we  have  before  observed,  the  opinion 
expressed  by  the  Archbishop  upon  this  subject  was 
his  official  (not  private)  judgment,  inasmuch  as  the 
matter  involved  an  official  act  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land herself,  in  one  of  the  most  important  measures 
that  she  was  ever  called  upon  to  consider,  viz. :  the 
conferring  of  the  Episcopate  upon  a  sister  denomina- 
tion.^ Note  that  it  was  "applauded  to  by  the  other 
Bishops"  upon  whom  this  duty  also  devolved,  that 
even  Andrews,  who  had  raised  the  point,  '^acquiesced'' 
in  the  decision,  and  that  the  consecration  determined 
upon  under  these  conditions  was  officially  performed  in 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         8i 

accordance  therewith,  nor  have  we  any  evidence  that 
it  was  ever  questioned  afterwards.  In  short,  we 
have  here  only  another  instance  of  the  official  recog- 
nition by  the  Church  of  England  of  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  Ordination,  and  of  the  further  fact 
that  presbyterially  governed  bodies  are  true  parts  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  ^Moreover,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  Bishop  of  Ely  did,  in  the  foregoing  instance, 
apparently  express  some  doubt  on  this  subject,  yet 
we  find  him  even  then  "acquiescing"  in  the  decision 
of  his  brother  Bishops,  and  a  little  later  on  even 
reiterating  the  same  opinion  as  his  own.  For  in  his 
letter  to  Du  Moulin  (1618)  he  says, — "though  our 
government  be  of  Divine  right,  it  follows  not,  either 
that  there  is  'no  salvation,'  or  that  a  Church  cannot 
stand  without  it.  He  must  needs  he  sto?ie  blind,  that 
?ees  not  Churches  standing  without  it.  .  .  .  This  is 
not  to  damn  any  thing,  to  prefer  a  better  thing  before  it: 
this  is  not  to  damn  your  Church,  to  recall  it  to  another 
form,  that  all  afitiquity  was  better  pleased  with,  that  is, 
to  ours."  (Second  letter  to  Du  Moulin.  Words. 
Christ.  Instit.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  239.  Also  Goode's  Orders.) 
Archbishop  Bramhall,  another  ardent  defender  of 
Episcopacy,  also  expresses  the  same  opinion.  As 
late  as  1659,  on  the  eve  of  the  Restoration,  he 
writes:  "I  cannot  assent  .  .  .  that  either  all  or 
any  considerable  part  of  the  Episcopal  divines  in 
England  do  unchurch  either  all  or  the  most  part  of  the 
Protestarit  Churches"  (plain  evidence  that  even  then, 
1659,  this  view  was  not  held  by  any  "considerable 

6 


82         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

part''  of  the  clergy,  much  less  an  official  view  of  the 
Church).  "  They  unchurch  none  at  all,  but  leave  them 
to  stand  or  jail  to  their  own  Master.  They  do  not  un- 
church the  Swedish,  Danish,  Bohemian  Churches,  and 
many  other  Churches  i?i  Polonia,  Hungaria,  and  those 
parts  oj  the  world  which  have  an  ordi?iary  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  pastors,  some  by  the  name  of 
Bishops,  others  under  the  name  of  Seniors,  unto  this 
day.  .  .  .  They  unchurch  not  the  Lutheran  Churches 
in  Germany,  who  both  assert  Episcopacy  in  their 
Confessions,  and  have  actual  Superintendents  in 
their  practice,  and  would  have  Bishops,  name  and 
thing,  if  it  were  in  their  power.  ...  I  will  remove 
this  scruple  out  of  his  mind,  that  he  may  sleep 
securely  upon  both  ears.  Episcopal  divines  do  not 
deny  those  to  be  true  Churches  wherein  salvation  may  be 
had.  .  .  .  Episcopal  divines  will  readily  subscribe 
to  the  determination  of  the  learned  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester {i.  e.  Andrews — another  proof  that  he  per- 
sonally held  the  opinions  we  have  ascribed  to  him). 
This  mistake  proceedeth  from  not  distinguishing 
between  the  true  nature  and  essence  of  a  Church, 
Which  we  do  Readily  Grant  Them,  a7id  the  in- 
tegrity and  perfection  of  a  Church,  which  we  cannot 
grant  them  without  swerving  from  the  judgment  of  the 
Catholic  Church. "  (Vindic.  of  Himself  and  the  Epis. 
Clergy,  c.  3;  Works,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  517,  518.)  There  is 
no  mistaking  the  import  of  these  words,  and  it  is 
clear  therefrom  that  Andrews,  Bancroft,  and  Bram- 
hall,  all  High  Churchmen,  were  entirely  agreed  upon 
this  matter.     It  would  be  useless  to  multiply  like 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         83 

quotations  from  the  works  of  Usher, Cosin.Davenant, 
StiUingfleet,  and  others,  ail  to  tlie  same  effect.  The 
evidence  is  simply  indisputable  that  there  is  no 
fundamental  change  in  the  opinions  of  any  of  the 
great  authorities  of  the  English  Church  up  to  the 
very  year  of  the  Restoration.  However,  there  was 
an  important  demand  at  this  time  that  something 
be  done  to  put  an  end  to  Puritan  usurpation  and  to 
re-establish  Episcopal  authority  in  the  Church  of 
England,  which  had  for  years  past  been  strangely 
defied  and  derided.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
changes  then  introduced  into  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal, 
and  the  insistence  that  from  now  on  ''no  mari  shall  be 
accounted  or  taken  to  he  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or 
Deaco7i  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the 
said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined, 
and  admitted  thereunto  according  to  the  Form 
hereafter  following  or  hath  had  Episcopal  Consecra- 
tion or  Ordination. "  It  is  no  more  a  reflection  upon 
the  jMinisters  of  the  Protestant  Churches  who  have 
not  "had  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination," 
than  it  was  upon  those  of  the  Roman  and  Greek 
Communions  who,  though  Episcopally  ordained, 
had  not  been  admitted  "according  to  the  Form 
hereafter  following."  It  was  simply  a  declaration 
to  the  world  that  from  now  on  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  going  to  see  to  it  that  the  authority  of  her 
own  Bishops  should  be  respected  within  the  limits 
of  her  own  jurisdiction.  Past  events  had  already 
proved  that  it  was  inexpedient  in  the  extreme  to  allow 
Presbyterially  ordained  Ministers  to  hold  office  and 


84         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

benefice  in  the  Church  of  England,  without  submit- 
ting to  Episcopal  ordination  as  had  heretofore  been 
the  rule  for  over  one  hundred  years.  This  practice 
must  be  discontinued,  but  in  discontinuing  it  they 
were  careful  to  point  out  that  there  was  nothing 
wrong  with  the  doctrinal  position  of  the  men  who  had 
formerly  allowed  it.  In  short,  that  what  changes  or 
alternations  they  now  introduced,  were  made  in  the 
interests  of  expediency  only,  and  had  no  reference 
whatever  to  any  essential  doctrine.  In  fact,  so  far 
were  they  from  desiring  to  change  the  doctrinal 
position  of  the  Church  on  this,  or  any  point  whatso- 
ever, and  yet  so  fearful  were  they  that  the  revision 
of  the  Prayer  Book  proposed  would  nevertheless  be 
interpreted  by  some  persons  to  mean  this  very  thing 
(an  apprehension  which  we  see  now  to  have  been 
only  too  well  founded)  that  they  took  particular 
pains  to  assert  at  the  very  outset  that  "of  the 
sundry  alterations  proposed  unto  us,  we  have  re- 
jected all  such  as  either  were  of  dangerous  conse- 
quence {as  secretly  striking  at  some  established  doctrine 
or  laudable  practice  of  the  Church  of  England,  or, 
indeed,  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church  of  Christ)  or 
else  of  no  consequence  at  all,  but  utterly  frivolous 
and  vain.  But  such  alterations  as  were  tendered 
to  us  ...  as  seemed  to  us  in  any  degree  requisite  or 
expedient,  we  have  willingly  and  of  our  own  accord 
assented  unto ;  not  enforced  so  to  do  by  any  strength  of 
argument,  convincing  us  of  the  necessity  of  making  the 
said  alterations;  for  we  are  fully  persuaded  in  our 
judgment  (and  we  here  profess  it  to  the  world)  that  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         85 

Book,  as  it  stood  before  established  by  law,  doth  not 
contain  in  it  any  thing  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  or 
to  sound  doctrine,  or  which  a  godly  man  may  not  with  a 
good  conscience  use  and  submit  unto,  or  which  is  not 
fairly  defensible  against  any  that  shall  oppose  the 
same,^^    etc.     (Preface    to    Prayer    Book,     1662.) 
Moreover,  not  content  with  this  explicit  statement, 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  (XIV  Carol,  ii.)  which  was 
passed  to  enforce  the  use  of  the  Revised  Prayer 
Book,  went  even  farther,  and  having  enacted  {in 
support  of  the  prohibition  thus  added  to  the  Preface 
to  the  Ordinal)  that  "no  person  whatsoever  shall 
thenceforth  be  capable  to  be  admitted  to  any  Parson- 
age, Vicarage,  Benefice,"  etc.,  unless  he  shall  have 
been  "ordained  Priest  according  to  the  Form  and 
IManner  in  and  by  the  said  Book  prescribed,  unless 
he  have  formerly  been  made  Priest  by  Episcopal 
ordination,"  fully  reveals  that  this  was  a  measure  of 
expediency  only,  and  not  a  reflection  upon  the  doc- 
trinal position  of  the  Reformers  in  admitting  the 
validity  of  Presbytenan  Ordination,  and  recognizing 
non-episcopal  bodies  as  true  Churches  by  significantly 
adding  this  proviso:    ^'Provided,  that  the  penalties  in 
this  Act  shall  not  extend  to  the  Foreigners  or  Aliens  of 
the    Foreign    Reformed    Churches   allowed   or    to    be 
allowed  by  the  Kings  Majesty,  His  Heirs  and  Suc- 
cessors in  England. ''     If  the  words  of  the  Prayer 
Book  were  intended  to  change  the  doctrinal  attitude 
of  the  Church  of  England,  on  the  subject  of  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordination,  and  the  status 
of  non-episcopal  bodies  as  genuine  Churches,  it  is 


86    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

perfectly  clear  that  the  statement  of  the  Revisers 
in  the  Preface,  just  quoted,  that  they  did  not  intend 
to  alter  any  '^established  doctrine^ ^  by  the  changes 
which  they  made,  was  false,  that  their  further  state- 
ment that  the  Book  as  it  stood  before  did  not  contain 
anything  contrary  to  said  doctrine,  was  a  second 
falsehood,  and  that  this  further  Act  of  ParHament 
allowing  the  King  to  continue  to  admit  such  non- 
episcopally  ordained  Ministers  at  his  discretion,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  it  was  now  absolutely  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  new  doctrine  of  the  Church  which 
they  had  established  (and  which  this  very  Act  was 
supposed  to  enforce),  was  a  miserable  stultification 
of  all  the  official  declarations  and  proceedings  of  the 
Chtirch.  In  short,  it  is  only  necessary  to  read  the 
Preface  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1662,  and  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  (XIV  Carol,  ii.)  to  show  by  reductio  ad 
absurdum  the  utter  falsity  of  the  assumption  that 
the  Revision  of  1662  changed  in  any  way  the  doc- 
trinal position  of  the  Church  of  England  respecting 
the  Episcopate  or  the  status  of  non-episcopal  bodies 
as  true  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  validity  of  the  ordinations  of  these  non- 
episcopal  Ministers.  So  far  from  this  being  true,  it 
was,  on  the  contrary,  the  boast  of  the  Revisers  that 
they  had  not  changed  anything  essential,  either  in  the 
doctrine,  or  the  practice  of  the  Church.  Nothing 
can  be  clearer  than  this  fact  to  any  one  who  reads. 
Moreover,  the  claim  that  is  sometimes  made  that 
the  practice  of  re-ordination  is  in  itself  a  condemna- 
tion of  former  alleged  Orders,  and  this,  proof  that 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS    87 

the  Revisers  intended  to  change  the  doctrinal  posi- 
tion of  the  Church  on  this  point  (their  direct  words 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding)  is  again  demolished 
by  the  testimony  of  those  living  and  writing  at  the 
time,  which  flatly  contradicts  this  assumption.  Arch- 
bishop Leighton  was  one  of  the  very  first  persons 
whom  the  requirement  of  reordination  affected. 
He  was  compelled  to  be  re-ordained,  yet  he  himself, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  his  personal  friend, 
Bishop  Burnet,  did  not  regard  such  reordination  as 
signif^ang  any  annulment  of  his  former  orders.  "  He 
thought  that  every  Church  might  make  such  rules  of 
Ordination  as  they  pleased,  and  that  they  might 
ordain  all  that  came  to  them  from  any  other  Church ; 
and  that  the  reordaining  a  Priest  ordained  in  another 
Church  imported  no  more,  but  that  they  received 
him  into  Orders  according  to  their  rules,  and  did  not 
infer  the  annulling  the  Orders  he  had  formerly  received." 
{Hist,  of  His  Own  Times,  vol.  i.,  p.  140.)  This  shows 
very  clearly  what  Archbishop  Leighton  understood 
it  to  mean  in  his  own  case,  a  conclusion,  the  correct- 
ness of  which,  it  is  natural  to  presume,  he  would  be 
most  particular  in  ascertaining.  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  Burnet  regarded  it  likewise.  Archbishop 
Bramhall,  too,  another  contemporary,  and  by  no 
means  a  Low  Churchman,  is  expHcit  in  his  testimony 
to  the  same  effect.  He  says,  in  his  Letters  of  Orders, 
when  reordaining  one  who  had  previously  received 
Scotch  Presbyterian  Ordination  only:  "iVo/  annul- 
ling his  former  Orders  (if  any  he  had)  nor  determiiiing 
their  invalidity,  much  less  condemning  all  the  sacred 


88    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Orders  of  the  Foreign  Churches  (a  matter  which  we 
leave  to  the  proper  Judge  to  decide)  hut  MERELY 
SUPPLEMENTING  whatever  requisite,  according 
to  the  Canons  of  the  English  Church,  had  been  formerly 
omitted,  and  providing  jor  the  peace  of  the  Church,  so 
that  the  occasion  of  schism  may  be  taken  away,  and 
that  it  may  satisfy  the  conscience  of  the  faithful,  nor  that 
any  should  avoid  his  Presbyterian  ministrations  as 
though  they  were  invalid.^'  {Works,  Ox.  Ed.,  vol.  i., 
p.  xxxvii.,  quoted  by  Goode.)  That  is  to  say,  the 
Church  adopted  this  measure,  not  to  condemn  Pres- 
byterian Orders,  but  simply  to  remove  all  occasion  of 
controversy  and  dispute.  Bingham,  another  author- 
ity of  the  same  period,  the  author  of  the  Antiquities 
of  the  Christian  Church,  and  renowned  as  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  scholarly  writers  of  his  time,  also 
testifies  to  the  same  effect.  In  regard  to  the  "busi- 
ness of  re-ordination,"  says  he,  "which  some  reckon 
so  great  a  charge  against  the  Act  of  Uniformity  .  .  . 
what  harm  there  is  in  this,  I  confess  I  never  yet  could 
see:  and  I  am  sure  there  is  nothing  in  it  contrary  to  the 
principles  or  practice  of  Geneva  nor  perhaps  of  the 
whole  Frejich  Church.  For  at  Geneva  it  is  their 
common  practice,  whenever  they  remove  a  Minister 
from  one  Church  to  another,  to  give  him  a  new  and 
solemn  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer. 
Now,  if  it  be  lawful,  by  the  rules  of  the  Church  of 
Geneva  .  .  .  why  cannot  men  in  England  consent  to 
receive  a  new  Ordination  ?"  Moreover,  he  goes  on  to 
show  that  the  fact  that  the  former  ordination  is 
assumed  to  be  valid  by  them,  does  not  affect  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        89 

matter,  for  even  then,  he  asserts,  "I  show  that  they 
may  submit  to  a  new  ordination  without  sin"  and 
that  "  they  oiight  to  do  it,  after  the  example  of  Geneva, 
rather  than  set  up  separate  meetings  and  preach 
against  the  will  of  their  superiors,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  peace  of  the  Church,"  etc.  These  last  words, 
moreover,  reveal  very  clearly  what  we  have  every 
reason  to  believe,  from  other  independent  evidence, 
was  the  real  motive  in  this  requirement  of  Episcopal 
ordination  of  all  foreign  clergy  desiring  to  enter  the 
Church  of  England,  viz.:  not  to  reflect  upon  the 
validity  of  their  former  Orders,  but  to  insist  that 
they  give  tangible  evidence  of  their  willingness  to 
submit  to  Episcopal  government  which  their  former 
insubordination  had  rendered  necessary,  and  to 
insure  that  the  emoluments  and  endowments  of  an 
Episcopal  Church  were  not  foolishly  surrendered  to 
ambitious  and  rebellious  Presbyterians  within  it.  In 
short,  we  have  direct  evidence  that  such  worldly 
matters  as  the  disposition  of  benefices  and  prefer- 
ments, together  with  the  practical  necessity  of  peace 
in  the  Church,  were  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole 
measure,  and  that  the  doctrinal  question  as  to  the 
validity  or  non-validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination 
was  not  even  remotely  considered.  Bishop  Hall, 
writing  in  the  very  midst  of  this  discussion  which 
culminated  in  this  official  act,  distinctly  says:  *'The 
sticking  at  the  admission  of  our  brethren,  returning 
from  foreign  reformed  Churches,  was  not  in  the  case  of 
ordination,  hut  of  institution:  they  had  been  acknowl- 
edged Ministers  of  Christ  without  any  other  hands  laid 


90    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

on  them;  but  according  to  the  laws  of  our  land,  they 
were  not  capable  of  institution  to  benefice,  unless  they 
were  so  qualified  as  the  statute  of  this  realm  doth 
require.  And,  secondly,  I  know  those,  more  than 
one,  that  by  virtue  of  that  ordination  which  they 
brought  with  them  from  other  reformed  Churches, 
have  enjoyed  spiritual  promotions  and  livings  with- 
out any  exceptions  against  the  lawfulness  of  their 
callings."  (Vol.  x.,  p.  341.)  Like  statements  from 
Fleetwood,  Burnet,  Cosin,  and  Strype  could  be 
adduced,  not  merely  testifying  to  the  common 
practice  of  the  Church  up  to  the  year  1662  in  ad- 
mitting Presbyterially  ordained  Clergy  to  officiate 
in  the  Church  without  re-ordination  (which  is  so 
well  known  to  all  historians  as  to  need  no  comment 
here)  but,  further,  to  enjoy  benefice  and  preferment, 
and  it  was  this  last  feature  of  Act  XIH.  Elizabeth, 
mid  this  feature  only,  that  the  Church  amended  in 
1662.  As  Macaulay  distinctly  tells  us:  "Episcopal 
ordination  was  now  {1662) ,  for  the  first  time,  mside  an 
indispensable  qualification /or  preferment. "  {History, 
vol.  i.,  p.  132.)  But  finally,  to  cap  the  climax,  we 
have  only  to  remind  our  readers  that  it  was  in  this 
same  year  again  (1662),  and  at  the  hands  of  these 
same  men,  that  the  "Prayer  for  all  Conditions  of 
Men"  was,  for  the  first  time,  set  forth,  and  that 
Prayer,  endorsed  by  Convocation,  identifies  ^^the 
Catholic  Church''  with  "a//"  of  those  ^^who  profess 
a?id  call  themselves  Christia?is,"  irrespective  of  their 
particular  forms  of  Chiu-ch  Government,  thus  further 
refuting  the  assumption  of  our  "Catholic"  brethren 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         91 

that  the  Revisers  considered  the  Episcopate  as 
essential  to  the  existence  of  ''the  Catholic  Church." 
For  it  is  self-evident  that  if  "a//  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians"  are  members  of  "the  Catho- 
lic Chiirch,"  and  if  again,  all  non-episcopal  bodies 
"profess  and  call  themselves  Christians,"  then  all 
non-episcopal  bodies  belong  to  the  CathoHc  Church. 
Corollary,  Episcopacy  is  not  essential  to  the  being 
of  the  Catholic  Church. 

We  conclude  then  that  the  Revisers  of  1662,  so 
far  from  attempting  to  change  the  doctrinal  position 
of  the  Church  in  the  sixteenth  century  upon  the 
subject  of  the  Episcopate,  and  to  introduce  the  idea 
that  it  was  essential  or  necessary  to  the  being  of  the 
Church,  did  everything  they  could  to  guard  against  this 
very  misinterpretation  of  their  labours.  This  will  be 
evident  from  the  following  considerations: 

1st.  They  take  particular  pains  to  state  in  the 
Preface  to  their  new  Prayer  Book  that  they  have 
carefully  refrained  from  changing  any  doctrinal 
teaching  of  the  Church. 

2d.  They  introduce  three  new  Rubrics  into  the 
Ordinal  to  stress  the  fact  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Reformers  (whose  doctrinal  view  they  have  changed 
in  no  particular)  as  well  as  in  their  own,  only  two 
out  of  the  three  Orders,  so  called,  are  really  ''neces- 
sary ...  in  the  Church  of  Christ,"  viz.,  the 
Diaconate  and  the  Presbyterate. 

3d.  They  are  further  careful  to  retain  the  appro- 
priate headings  of  the  former  Ordinal  which  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  while  Deacons  and  Priests  are 


92    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

*' ordered"  {i.  c,  differentiated  into  separate  Orders 
or  Classes),  Bishops  are  not  "ordered"  or  set  apart 
from  Presbyters  in  a  higher  Class  or  Category  to 
themselves,  but  merely  *' Consecrated''  to  the  per- 
formance of  certain  acts. 

4th.  They  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  restrictions 
which  they  place  upon  the  practice  of  allowing  non- 
episcopally  ordained  Ministers  to  officiate  without 
re-ordination  is  a  restriction  only  {not  a  prohibition) 
of  a  custom  which  though  valid  in  principle  is  in- 
expedient in  practice;  —  they  do  this  by  specially 
providing  that  the  King  might  at  his  personal  discre- 
tion CONTINUE  THE  PRACTICE  IN  SPECIFIC  CASES. 

5th.  They  officially  recognize  the  non-episcopal 
organizations  of  their  day  as  ^'Reformed  Churches'* 
in  the  Act  of  Uniformity. 

6th.  They  set  forth  a  new  Prayer  officially  iden- 
tifying ^'the  Catholic  Church"  with  ^'all  who  profess 
and  call  themselves  Christians,"  thus  clearly  compre- 
hending all  the  non-episcopal  bodies.  Moreover,  in 
addition  to  all  this,  they  (we  mean  the  Revisers  them- 
selves, as  well  as  their  contemporaries)  leave  us 
numberless  ww-official  statements  of  their  own 
personal  belief  {as  individuals)  in  the  validity  of  non- 
episcopal  Orders,  and  of  their  recognition  of  these 
non-episcopal  bodies  as  true  Churches,  to  say  nothing 
of  many  explicit  declarations  that  such  was  also  the 
official  view  of  the  Church  itself  in  their  day.  Under 
these  circumstances,  we  maintain  that  it  is  a  feat  of 
logical  prestidigitation  only  that  can  possibly  trans- 
form these  facts  into  a  justification  of  the  "catholic" 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         93 

theory  of  the  Episcopate,  and  its  absolute  necessity 
to  the  being  of  the  Church  and  the  Ministry,  as  the 
official  view  of  this  Church.  When  the  Revisers'  own 
amendments  to  the  Ordinal  significantly  refrain  from 
asserting  the  necessity  of  the  Episcopate  and  as 
significantly  go  out  of  the  way  to  emphasize  the  neces- 
sity of  the  Diaconate  and  the  Presbyterate,  and 
when,  on  top  of  all  this,  we  find  their  individual 
writings  to  be  full  of  admissions  regarding  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  and  abounding 
with  recognitions  of  these  non-episcopal  bodies  as 
true  Churches,  the  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that 
they  held  the  views  of  modem  "Catholics"  respect- 
ing the  Episcopate,  or  that  they  "unchurched"  their 
Protestant  brethren,  is  not  only  idle,  but  simply 
preposterous.  The  only  fact  that,  when  viewed 
superficially,  seems  at  first  sight  to  render  this 
assumption  plausible,  is  the  requirement  of  re- 
ordination,  but  closer  examination  removes  even  this 
impression.  For  whatever  may  be  the  popular 
opinion  to-day  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  repeating 
ordinations,  it  is  certain,  not  only  that  authorities 
have  differed  profoundly  upon  this  subject,  but  that 
the  Revisers  in  question  held  that  it  could  be  done. 
They  held  that  a  second  ordination  did  not  reflect 
upon  the  validity  of  the  first.  This  is  all  we  know 
or  need  to  know  concerning  the  matter  here  under 
discussion.  For,  be  it  remembered,  we  are  not  here 
discussing  the  abstract  question.  Can  a  valid  ordina- 
tion be  repeated?  (any  more  than  we  are  discussing 
the  abstract  question,  Can  Presbyters  ordain?)  but, 


94         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

What  was  and  is  the  official  attitude  of  the  Church  of 
England  upon  that  subject?  Right  or  wrong,  in  itself, 
we  maintain  that  the  Church  of  England  officially 
assumed  that  a  second  ordination  could  be  had 
ivithout  impugning  the  validity  of  the  first,  and  that 
right  or  wrong  in  itself,  this  was  the  view  of  the 
Revisers.  Hence,  right  or  wrong  in  itself,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  re-ordination  practiced  by  the  Church  of 
England  was  not  intended  to  reflect  upon  the  validity 
of  the  former  Ordination.  Leighton,  Burnet,  Bram- 
hall,  and  Bingham,  as  we  have  just  seen,  tell  us  this 
in  so  many  words,  the  latter  asserting  that  the  same 
view  was  maintained  even  by  Geneva,  and  could  be 
justified  by  an  appeal  to  antiquity.  When  we  add 
to  this  the  further  fact  that  such  an  interpretation 
squares  with  all  the  other  acts  and  utterances  of  the 
Revisers,  both  official  and  unofficial,  whereas  the 
contrary  assumption  cannot  be  made  to  fit  in  with 
them  at  all,  but  only  renders  all  such  acts  and  utter- 
ances contradictory  and  absurd,  the  conclusion  here 
set  forth  is  irresistible.  In  short,  the  whole  thing 
was  done  as  a  measure  of  expediency  only — not  with 
the  intention  of  reflecting  upon  the  validity  of  Pres- 
byterian ordination  which  they  had  repeatedly  recog- 
nized both  officially,  and  unofficially,  but  simply  to 
insure  respect  for  Episcopal  Government  in  the 
Church.  They  wished  to  provide  against  the  repeti- 
tion of  those  acts  of  insubordination  which  their 
former  leniency  towards  such  Presbyterially  ordained 
Ministers  had  brought  about.  But  while  this  explan- 
ation should  be  satisfactory  to  any  unbiassed  mind, 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         95 

yet  happily  there  is  a  quicker  way  of  disposing  of  the 
whole  problem.  We  can  at  once  dispense  with  the 
whole  "Catholic"  argument,  by  merely  saying  that 
re-ordination  is  not  absolutely  necessary  even  to-day. 
That  it  was  enacted  as  a  measure  of  expediency  only, 
and  not  as  a  doctrinal  necessity,  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  the  very  Act  that  enforced  this  provision  of  re- 
ordination,  also  provided  that  the  King  could  dispense 
with  it  at  his  discretio7i,  a  prerogative  which  he  still 
possesses  to-day.  We  have  already  referred  to  this 
Proviso  of  XIV.  Carol.  H.,  which  is  so  deftly  ignored 
by  those  whose  interests  are  not  materially  enhanced 
by  it.  We  will  make  no  further  comment  of  our  own, 
therefore,  but  will  merely  call  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing quotation.  Says  a  certain  writer,  "Perhaps  the 
most  conclusive  of  all  considerations  as  to  the  posi- 
tion which  the  English  Church  occupies  in  regard 
to  this  question  is  to  be  found  in  the  facts  that:  (i) 
Up  to  the  year  1820,  i.  e.,  the  end  of  George  IH.'s 
reign,  a  large  proportion  of  the  Clergy  in  the  Channel 
Islands  were  not  Episcopally  ordained,  although  they 
ministered  according  to  the  formularies  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  formed  a  part  of  the  Clergy  of  the 
Diocese  of  Winchester;  (2)  That  the  Kings  of  England 
up  to  the  same  date  constantly  had  attached  to  their 
households  a  Presbyterian  Chaplain;  (3)  That  the 
Queen  to  this  day  has  the  same  in  Scotland ;  and  (4) 
That  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  Charles  II.,  the  very 
Act,  and  the  first  and  only  Act,  which  made  it  neces- 
sary, as  a  rule,  that  all  persons  thereafter  to  be 
admitted  to  the  cure  of  souls  in  England  should  have 


96    WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

been  Episcopally  ordained,  contains  also  a  clause" 
(here  is  appended  the  Proviso  which  we  have 
quoted  from  the  Act)  ''specially  permitting  the  King 
to  admit  persons  not  so  ordained,  who  were  foreigners 
and  ordained  in  the  foreign  Protestant  Churches,  to  pre- 
ferment in  the  English  Church  without  re-ordination. 
This  permission  was  acted  upon  by  King  Charles  II. 
within  a  very  few  years  after  it  was  passed,  and  it  would 
doubtless  be  within  the  power  of  her  present  Majesty'* 
(he  refers  to  Queen  Victoria)  "to  act  upon  it  again  if  she 
should  see  fit  to  do  so.  This  being  the  actual  position 
of  the  English  Church  from  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  to  the 
present  time,  it  is  nothing  less  than  an  absurdity  to  talk 
of  it  as  holding  the  'doctrijie  of  the  Apostolic  Succession.*" 
{Romanism,  Protestantism,  Anglicanism,  pub.  by 
Prot.  Epis.  Soc.  for  Promotion  of  Evang.  Knowledge, 
New  York,  1883,  pp.  44,  45.)  This  effectually  dis- 
poses of  the  argument  that  the  practice  of  re-ordina- 
tion by  the  Church  of  England  was  intended  to 
reflect  upon  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordination, 
as  such,  or  that  it  was  adopted  as  anything  more  than 
a  mere  measure  of  expediency. 

Before  bringing  this  chapter  to  a  close,  it  may, 
perhaps,  be  well  to  examine  the  utterances  of  some 
of  the  men  who  lived  during  the  epoch  in  question, 
and  who  have  incidentally  thrown  light  upon  the 
matter.  As  a  sample  of  the  opinion  which  prevailed 
even  during  the  troublous  period  of  the  Interregnum, 
when  prejudice  against  Presbyterianism  was  certainly 
strongest,  we  have  only  to  quote  these  words  of  Arch- 
bishop Usher,  the  greatest  scholar  of  his  time:  "I 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         97 

have  ever  declared  my  opinion  to  be,  that  Episcopus 
et  Presbyter  gradu  tantmn  differunt  non  ordine,  and 
consequently  that  in  places  where  Bishops  cannot  be 
had,  the  ordination  by  Presbyters  standeth  valid;  yet, 
on  the  other  hand,  holding  as  I  do  that  a  Bishop  hath 
superiority  in  degree  above  a  Presbyter,  you  may 
easily  judge  that  the  Ordination  made  by  such 
Presbyters  as  have  severed  themselves  from  those 
Bishops  unto  whom  they  had  sworn  canonical  obed- 
ience, cannot  possibly,  by  me,  be  excused  from  being 
schismatical.  And  howsoever  I  must  needs  think 
that  the  Churches  which  have  no  Bishops  are  thereby 
become  very  much  defective  in  their  government,  and 
that  the  Churches  in  France,  who  living  imder  a 
Popish  power,  can  not  do  what  they  would,  are  more 
excusable  in  this  defect  than  the  Low  Countries, 
that  live  under  a  free  State,  yet,  for  the  testifying  my 
Communion  with  these  Churches  {which  I  do  love  a7id 
honour  as  true  members  of  the  Church  Universal)  I  do 
profess  that,  with  like  affection,  I  shoidd  receive  the 
blessed  Sacrament  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  Ministers , 
if  I  were  hi  Holland,  as  I  should  do  at  the  hands  of  the 
French  Ministers  if  I  were  in  Charentone. "  {Judgment 
of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  etc.  By  N.  Bernard. 
Lond.,  1657,  8  vo.,  pp.  125, 127.)  ^  If  now,  we  examine 

'  In  addition  to  this  explicit  acknowledgment  of  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  Ordination  on  the  part  of  this  most  distinguished 
scholar  and  prelate,  we  call  attention  to  his  no  less  explicit  statement 
that  a  Bishop  differs  from  a  Presbyter  merely  in  Grade  or  Office — not  in 
Order.  In  fact,  it  is  because  they  are  one  in  "Order"  that  he  asserts 
the  ordination  by  Presbyters  is  valid,  and  the  Sacraments  adminis- 
tered at  their  hands  efficacious. 


98         WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

the  works  of  the  more  exclusive  Churchmen  who 
wrote  at  the  time  of,  and  soon  after  the  Restoration, 
we  find  that  they,  like  their  predecessors,  held  the 
same  opinion  as  to  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  and  the  validity  of  non-episcopal  ordination. 
Of  all  the  members  of  the  Committee  to  whom  was 
entrusted  the  Revision  of  1662,  we  are  informed,  by 
High  Churchmen  themselves,  that  none  contributed 
more  to  the  result  than  Cosin  of  Durham.  Cosin,  we 
are  told,  was  "the  most  learned  ritualist  of  the  day," 
and  was  conspicuously  the  leader  of  those  advocating 
a  more  stringent  measure  concerning  submission  to 
Episcopal  authority,  as  Baxter  was  the  leader  of  the 
Presbyterian  party.  It  was  because  "Cosin  had 
brought  with  him  a  copy  of  the  Prayer  Book  as  it 
stood  after  the  Revision  of  James  l.,with  his  ownnotes^ 
on  which  he  had  expended  the  labour  of  forty  years^ 
as  against  the  proposed  Prayer  Book  of  the  Presbyter- 
ians on  which  Baxter  had  expended  fourteen  days/*^ 
that  the  Commission  was  able  to  proceed  so  rapidly 
with  its  work.  If  any  one  man,  therefore,  was  com- 
petent to  reflect  the  attitude  of  the  Episcopal  party 
in  this  matter,  it  was  Cosin,  to  whose  judgment 
upon  disputed  points  with  the  Presbyterians,  they 
were  generally  ready  to  defer.  Yet,  at  that  time,  and 
to  the  very  end  of  his  life,  Cosin  recognized  the  non- 

^  Here's  Hist.  Ch.  of  England,  pp.  367,  368.  He  also  tells  us  that: 
"At  the  Revision  of  1662,  as  many  as  600  alterations,  mostly  verbal, 
and  of  no  importance  from  a  doctrinal  point  of  view,  are  said  to  have 
been  made. "  {Id.,  p.  368.)  Wherever  we  look  the  evidence  is  the 
same,  no  doctrine  or  essential  practice  of  the  Church  was  touched  by 
the  Revisers  of  1662. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS         99 

episcopal  bodies  as  true  Churches,  admitted  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  Ordination,  and  even  went  so  far  as  to 
assert  that  this  view  was  not  his  private  opinion  merely, 
but  the  official  view  of  the  Church  of  England.  '  *  Though 
we  may  safely  say  and  maintain  it,"  says  he,  "that 
their  Ministers  are  not  so  duly  and  rightly  ordained 
as  they  should  be  .  .  .  yet  that,  by  reason  of  this 
defect,  there  is  a  total  nullity  in  their  ordinations,  or 
that  they  be  therefore  no  Priests  or  Mijiisters  of  the 
Church  at  all,  because  they  are  ordained  by  those  only 
who  are  no  more  but  Priests  and  Ministers  among 
them;  for  my  part,  I  would  be  loath  to  affirm  and  deter- 
mine it  against  them.  And  I  love  not  to  be  herein 
more  wise  or  harder  than  our  own  Church  is,  which 
because  it  hath  never  publicly  condemned  and  pronounced 
the  ordinations  of  the  other  Reformed  Churches  to  be 
void,  as  it  doth  not  those  of  the  unreformed  Churches, 
neither  among  the  Papists,^*  etc.  .  .  .  I  dare  not 
take  upon  me  to  condemn  or  determine  a  nullity  of  their 
own  ordinations  against  them ....  Of  this  opinion 
and  judgment  in  old  time  were  (here  follows  a  long 
list  of  authorities  who  support  his  view) .  .  .  All 
which  authors  are  of  so  great  credit  with  you  and  me, 
that  though  we  are  not  altogether  of  their  mind,  yet 
we  would  be  loath  to  let  the  world  see  that  we 
contradict  them  all,  and  condemn  their  judgment 
openly ;  as  needs  we  must,  if  we  hold  the  contrary,  and 
say  that  the  Ministers  of  the  Reformed  French  Churches 
for  want  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  have  no  order  at  all. 
....  If  the  Church  and  Kingdom  of  England  have 
acknowledged  them  (as  they  did  in  admitting  them 


100       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

when  they  fled  thither  for  refuge,  and  placing  them 
hy  public  authority  in  divers  of  the  most  eminent  cities 
among  us  without  prohibition)  why  should  we,  that 
are  but  private  persons,  utterly  disclaim  their  com- 
munion in  their  own  country."  (Letter  to  Cordel, 
1650,  who  is  protesting  that  the  French  Churches 
*'have  no  Priests.'^  The  whole  letter  is  given  by 
Basire  and  Bishop  Fleetwood,  and  is  cited,  in  part,  by 
Goode,  who  adds  that  ^^  similar  statements  are  ex- 
pressed by  him  {Cosin)  in  a  Letter  published  by  Dr.  R. 
Watson  {1684)  and  ^also  in  his  last  Will  inserted  in 
the  Preface  to  his  Regni  Atigliae  Relig.  et  Gubern. 
Eccles.  Lond.  iy2Q,  410.' "  Now  if  these  words  do  not 
furnish  conclusive  proof  of  the  truth  of  our  position, 
we  hardly  think  that  any  evidence  would  be  sufficient 
to  convert  our  "Catholic"  brethren.  The  truth  is 
we  could  hardly  invent  testimony  that  would  be  more 
favourable  or  that  would  more  completely  cover 
every  disputed  point.  He  testifies  (a)  to  his  own 
personal  attitude  toward  the  question  of  the  validity 
of  their  Orders,  (b)  to  the  official  attitude  of  the 
Church  of  England  herself,  both  before  his  day,  and 
in  his  day,  (c)  to  the  fact  that  these  bodies  are  (not 
only  Churches)  but  ^^ Reformed  Churches"  as  op- 
posed to  the  "  Z7iz-reformed  Churches"  of  the 
Papists,  (d)  to  what  was  the  opinion  of  a  long  list 
of  eminent  authorities  in  ancient  days  on  the  question 
of  the  validity  of  non -episcopal  ordination;  and  all 
this  testimony,  adduced  in  condemnation  of  the  pri- 
vate opinion  of  Cordel  (which  was  synonymous  with 
the  "Catholic"  view  of  to-day)  is  first  published  in 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       loi 

1650 — shortly  before  the  Restoration,  repeated  again 
ajter  the  Restoration,  and  all  by  a  man  who  was  not 
only  one  of  the  Revisers,  but,  generally  regarded  as 
the  leader  of  the  Revisers,  the  brains  of  the  Commis- 
sion. Again  we  find  that  Archbishop  Sancroft, 
another  member  of  the  Committee  on  Revision 
(1662),  whom  Macaulay  describes  as  "an  honest, 
pious,  narrow-minded  man,"  we  find  that  even  he 
could  exhort  the  Clergy  of  his  Province  (1688)  to 
pray  for  "the  universal  blessed  union  of  all  Reformed 
Churches  both  at  home  and  abroad  against  our  com- 
mon enemies'*  in  order  that  "g//  they  who  do  confess 
the  Holy  Name  of  our  dear  Lord,  and  do  agree  in  the 
truth  of  His  Holy  Word  (that  is  to  say — the  whole 
Catholic  Church]  vide  words  of  Prayer  Book)  may 
also  meet  in  one  Holy  Communion,  and  live  in  per- 
fect unity  and  godly  love. "  (D'Oyly's  Life  of  San- 
croft, i.,  p.  325.)  Still  more  important  is  the  testi- 
mony of  Sherlock,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  a  non-juror 
like  Sancroft,  for  not  only  is  he  still  more  explicit 
in  voicing  his  own  personal  recognition  of  the  non- 
episcopal  Churches  and  their  Orders,  but  he  tells  us 
in  so  many  words  that  such  was  the  view  of  the 
Church  of  England  at  the  time  he  was  writing,  which 
was  after  the  Restoration  and  the  amendments  of 
1662.  "I  do  allow  Episcopacy,"  says  he,  "to  be 
an  Apostolical  institution,  and  the  truly  ancient  and 
Catholic  government  of  the  Church,  of  which  more 
hereafter ;  but  yet  in  this  very  book  I  prove  industri- 
ously and  at  large  that,  in  case  of  necessity,  when  Bis- 
hops cannot  be  had,  a  Church  may  be  a  truly  Catholic 


102       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Church,  and  such  as  we  may  and  ought  to  communicate 
with,  without  Bishops,  i?t  vindicatio?i  of  some  Foreign 
Reformed  Churches  who  have  none;  and  therefore  I  do 
not  make  Episcopacy  so  absolutely  necessary  to  Catholic 
communion  as  to  unchurch  all  Churches  that  have  it 
not. "  So  much  for  his  personal  view ;  then  he  adds — 
^'the  Church  of  England  does  not  deny  but  that,  in 
case  of  necessity  the  ordination  of  Presbyters  may  be 
valid."  {Vindic.  of  Some  Prot.  Principles,  etc. 
Reprinted  in  Gibson's  Preserv.  Vol.  iii.,  pp.  410, 
432.  Cited  by  Goode — On  Orders.)  Again,  Dr. 
Claget,  writing,  like  Sherlock,  after  the  Restoration, 
affirms  that  "The  Church  of  England  doth  not  un- 
church those  parts  of  Christendom  that  hold  the 
unity  of  the  Faith"  {Brief  Discourse  Co?i.  the  Notes 
of  the  Church,  pp.  166,  169) — a  statement  obviously 
referring  to  the  non-episcopal  Protestant  Churches. 
Still  later  again  {i.  e.,  1719)  Archbishop  Wake  writes: 
"Although  in  certain  matters  they  dissent  from 
our  Anglican  Communion,  I  willingly  embrace  the 
Reformed  Churches.  I  would  desire  indeed  the  Epis- 
copal Government.  .  .  and  that  it  had  been  re- 
tained by  these ....  Meanwhile  as  it  is  wanting, 
shoidd  I  be  so  iron-hearted,  merely  because  of  a  defect  of 
this  khid  {for  malice  alone  would  permit  me  to  speak 
thus)  that  I  should  believe  that  some  of  them  should  be 
cut  off  from  communion  with  us;  or  that  with  certain 
rabid  writers  among  our  own  people,  I  should  pronounce 
that  they  have  no  true  and  valid  Sacraments,  and  even 
go  so  far  as  scarcely  to  regard  them  as  Christians! ^^ 
{Vide    Mosheim's    Eccles.    Hist.,    4th    Appendix.) 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       103 

But  it  is  useless  to  continue  such  quotations.  We 
merely  ask  how  is  it  possible  for  our  "Catholic" 
friends  to  reconcile  these  interpretations  of  the 
Church's  official  position  made  by  men  of  the  very 
highest  authority  within  that  Communion,  some  of 
them  writing  before  the  Revision  of  1662,  some  of 
them  members  of  the  Committee  on  Revision  itself, 
and  writing  anywhere  from  about  the  period  in 
question  till  the  beginning  of  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury, with  their  own  theory  of  a  complete  doctrinal 
change  of  front  on  this  momentous  question  in  the  year 
1662,  and  all  this  in  the  face  of  the  clearest,  official 
declaration  of  the  Church  herself  that  no  changes 
whatever  were  made  in  any  of  her  doctrines  in  that  year, 
and  the  further  abundant  corroboration  of  this  state- 
ment by  numbers  of  the  most  emijient  authorities  oj  that 
period — some  of  whom  personally  took  part  in  the  work 
of  the  Revision?  The  truth  is,  as  we  have  said  before, 
the  whole  theory  is  a  groimdless  fiction.  It  is  one  thing 
to  say,  therefore,  that  beginning  about  the  time  of 
the  Restoration  (and  as  a  result  of  the  suffering  which 
the  Church  had  undergone  during  the  Interregnum 
at  the  hands  of  the  Presbyterians)  public  sentiment 
began  to  change,  and  an  attitude  less  liberal  towards 
the  claims  of  Presbyterianism  began  to  assert  itself, 
which  was  doubtless  reflected  in  some  individual 
cases  in  exclusive  claims  for  the  Episcopate  (which 
we  would  not  be  disposed  to  question),  but  quite 
another  to  assert  that  the  Church  as  a  Church  offi- 
cially repudiated  at  that  time  her  former  doctrinal 
position  on  the  subject  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterian 


104       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Ordination.  We  do  not  deny  the  first  proposition, 
but  we  emphatically  detiy  the  second.  In  short,  to 
prove  the  truth  of  their  contention,  our  opponents 
must  show  either  that  the  Church  completely  re- 
versed her  former  doctrinal  position  in  the  year  1662, 
or  else  that  she  had  done  so  at  some  later  period  in 
her  history.  As  the  first  alternative  has  been  proved 
impossible,  the  second  becomes  their  last  resort. 

But  where  can  they  point  to  any  subsequent  doc- 
trinal revision?  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  consensus 
of  opinion  amongst  all  our  ecclesiastical  historians 
that  no  doctrinal  or  other  alterations  of  any  moment 
have  been  introduced  since  that  epoch.  Few  author- 
ities, we  presume,  stand  higher  in  the  estimation  of  our 
American  Chiirchmen  generally,  than  the  late  Bishop 
Seymour  of  Springfield,  who  nevertheless  tells  us 
that  "the  Revision  of  1662  may  be  justly  called  the 
lastf  because  no  changes  of  any  moment  have  been 
made  since  by  the  orders-in-council,  which  have 
necessarily  been  issued  on  the  accession  of  successive 
sovereigns,  and  by  the  Amendment  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  passed  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria. 
The  Church  of  1662,  therefore,  has  been  from  that  date, 
and  is  to-day,  the  Ecclesia  Docens  of  England. "  And, 
he  adds,  as  showing  the  bearing  of  the  doctrinal 
position  of  the  Church  of  England  upon  that  of  our 
own, — "When  we  took  our  departure  as  an  independ- 
ent daughter  Church,  we  brought  our  Mother's 
Prayer  Book  with  us,  and  used  it,  as  far  as  local  cir- 
cumstances would  allow,  as  our  own.  This  fact 
we  explicitly  declare  in  the  Preface  of  our  Prayer 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       105 

Book,  since  we  affirm  in  unmistakable  language  as 
follows:  *  This  Church  is  far  from  ifitending  to  depart 
from  the  Church  of  England  in  any  essential  point  of 
doctrine,  discipline  or  worship,  or  further  tha?i  local 
circumstances  require.'"  (Art.  by  Bp.  Seymour, 
Stevens's  Genesis  of  American  Prayer  Book,  pp.  67, 
68.) 

To  bring  the  matter  still  more  cleariy  before  the 
mind  of  the  reader,  we  here  append  a  tabular  synop- 
sis of  some  of  the  principal  official  acts  of  the  Church 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  downward. 
While  the  reform  movement  was  initiated  under 
Henry  VIH.,  it  did  not  progress  to  any  extent  until 
the  reign  of  Edward,  nor  did  it  reach  its  final  form  or 
completion  until  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  so  that  the 
Prayer  Book,  Articles,  and  other  formularies,  under- 
went considerable  changes  before  assuming  (1559- 
1563)  what  is  substarttially  so  far  as  essential  doctrinal 
matters  are  concerned,  their  present  form.  While, 
therefore,  for  our  present  purpose,  it  would  be  unfair 
to  quote  any  acts  or  formularies  made  prior  to  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  which  were  subsequently  elim- 
inated  or  rescinded  by  lawful  authority,  as  of  any  force 
to-day,  yet  it  is  of  course  self-evident  that  the  sub- 
stance of  any  act  or  formulary  promulgated  prior  to 
that  reign,  which  was  never  subsequently  reversed 
or  aboHshed  by  authority,  are  all  the  more  admissible 
as  evidence,  inasmuch  as  their  promulgation  in  a 
period  of  transition,  and  at  a  time  when  the  Church 
had  by  no  means  settled  all  its  doctrinal  problems, 
and   their   continued   preservation   through   all   the 


io6       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

changes  and  alterations  of  a  later  period,  bespeak 
the  fact  that  upon  these  particular  matters  at  least, 
there  has  never  been  any  serious  doubt  even  from  the 
initial  stage  of  the  reform  movement.  Of  such  a  nature, 
for  example,  is  the  Church's  attitude  toward  the 
validity  of  Lay  Baptism — a  judgment  formally 
expressed  in  the  very  1st  Prayer  Book  of  Edward, 
1549,  and  never  since  rescinded,  and  the  obvious 
corollary  deducible  therefrom  that  even  from  the  very 
beginning  the  Church  has  regarded  all  baptized 
persons  (whether  under  Episcopal  authority  or  not) 
as  members  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 


Some  Official  Acts  of  the  Church  of  England 


Unofficial      Testimony 

that  the 
Reformers  and  the 
Church  itself  recognized 
non-episcopal  Churches 
and  the  validity  of 
their  ordinations. 


1549    Church  officially  declares  Bap- 
tism   to    be    incorporation 
into  the  Catholic  Church. 
Officially  recognizes  Lay  Bap- 
tism as  valid. 
Ergo — Church  officially  recog- 
nizes all  baptized  per- 
sons    whether     mem- 
bers   of    Episcopal    or 
Non-Episcopal    bodies 
as  members  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church. 


^  Prayer 
Book. 


"Nearly  up  to  the  time 
that  Hooker  wrote  (1594) 
numbers  had  been  admit- 
ted to  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  of  England,  with 
no  better  than  Presby- 
ter i  an  Ordination." 
— Keble.     

So  also  Hallam,  Ma- 
caulay  and  many  others. 
But  better  still  is  the 
witness     of     contempor- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 


107 


Patent  granted  by  Edward  VI.  oflBcially 
recognizes  "the  Church  of  the  Germans" 
and  the  validity  of  its  Ministry  and 
Sacraments. 

Church  officially  reaffirms  po- )  Prayer 
sition  of   1549  on  Baptism,  f  Book. 

Church  officially  reaffirms  po-  )  Prayer 
sition  of  1549-1552  on  Bap-  )  Book, 
tism. 

Act  XIII.  Elizabeth  officially  permits 
non-episcopally  ordained  Ministers  to 
officiate  and  to  enjoy  benefice  in  Ch. 
of  England  without  reordination — so 
recognizing  validity  of  such  Ordination, 
and  confirming  prior  recognition  of 
non-episcopal  bodies  as  true  Churches. 

Prayer  set  forth  officially  defines  "Thy 
Church  Universal  dispersed  throughout 
the  whole  world"  as  consisting  of  "all 
they  that  confesse  Thy  Holy  Name,'* 
so  including  members  of  non-episcopal 
bodies. 

Prayer  set  forth  officially  recognizing 
"the  Churches  of  France,  Flanders,  and 
of  such  of  other  places"  as  were  then 
suffering  persecution. 

Grindal,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  acting 
officially  issues  license  to  one  John 
Morrison  "to  celebrate  divine  offices, 
to  minister  the  Sacraments,"  etc.,  with- 
out reordination,  assigning  as  the 
reason  the  validity  of  his  Orders  be- 
stowed "according  to  the  laudable  form 
and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Scotland,"  etc. 

N.  B.  Ch.of  Scotland  was  non-episcopal. 
Both  the  Church  and  its  Orders  thus 
officially  recognized. 


ary  writers.     See     worki 
of  the  following: 

Cranmer,  Ridley,  Lati- 
mer, Hooper,  Philpot, 
Bradford,  Grindal,  Whit- 
gift,  Jewel,  Pilkington, 
Calfhill,  Hooker,  Whit- 
taker,  Fulke,  Saravia. 


io8 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 


1610, 


1590  Prayer  issued  by  authority  recognizes 
"Thy  servants  our  brethren  in  France  " 
as  constituting  part  of  "Thy  Church. " 

1604  The  Bidding  Prayer,  officially  set  forth 
by  the  Church,  defines  "Christ's  Holy 
Catholic  Church"  as  "the  whole 
Congregation  of  Christian  people  dis- 
persed throughout  the  whole  world," 
and  Specifically  mentions  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  by  name,  as  a  part  thereof. 
''  Ch.  of  England  officially  recognizes  valid- 
ity of  the  " Ordaining  Presbytery"  of  the 
Kirk  of  Scotland,  and  on  such  recogni- 
tion Episcopacy  is  sanctioned  by  the 
latter. 
Archbishop  Bancroft  officially  recognizes 
the  Church  of  Scotland  as  a  true 
Church,  and  its  presbyterial  ordinations 
as  vaUd,  when  about  to  consecrate 
Bishops  for  Scotland. 

1634  Official  recognition  of  the  "Reformed 
Churches  of  Helvetia,  Belgia,  Geneva, 
with  others,"  and  of  their  "true  and 
lawful  ministries,"  set  forth  "by  the 
authority  of  His  Majesty's  royal  letters- 
Patent"  and  "by  the  Lords  the  Reverend 
Bishops."  This  declaration  was  fur- 
ther endorsed  by  "both  Universities" 
and  "by  all  the  learned,  both  of  our  Clergy 
and  Laity,  throughout  our  dominions." 

1662  Official  declaration  of  the  Revisers  that 
no  doctrinal  changes  were  introduced  by 
them  and  that  they  endorsed  the  former 
attitude  of  the  Church  in  all  essentials 
— Preface — Pr.  Book. 
Act  of  Uniformity — 14  Carol  II. — offi- 
cially recognizes  "the  Foreign  Reformed 
Churches,"  and  while  restricting  the 
extent  of  the  former  practice,  specifical- 


Fleetwood,  Strype,  Ban- 
croft (and  even)  Laud, 
Willet,  Bilson,  Sutcliffe, 
Mason,  Field,  Babington, 
Burnet,  Fr.  White,  Thos. 
White,  Davenant,  Baxter, 
Rainolds,  Hall,  Cosin,  Pri- 
deaux,  Cudworth,  Tindal, 
Stillingfleet,  Usher,  Brara- 
hall,  Tillotson,  Chilling, 
worth,  etc.  etc. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 


109 


ly  provides  (§  15)  for  the  continued 
admission  of  non-episcopally  ordained 
ministers     under     certain     conditions. 

New  prayer  officially  set  forth  identifying 
"the  Catholic  Church'^  with  "all  who 
profess  and  call  themselves  Christians,^' 
so  including  non-episcopal  bodies. 

Orders  of  Deacon  and  Priest  only  de- 
clared to  be  "necessary"  .  .  .  "in 
the  Church  of  Christ" — Ordinal — 
Rubric. 

Generally  admitted  that  no  further 
amendments  or  changes  have  been  made 
since  1662  and  that  our  present  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Prayer  Book  and 
formularies  are  based  upon  the  Pr. 
Book  and  Formularies  of  the  Restora- 
tion. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  officially 
asserts  that  She  is  "far  from  intending 
to  depart  from  the  Church  of  England 
in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine, 
discipline,  or  worship."  Pr.  Book — 
Preface — referring  to  the  doctrine, 
discipline  and  worship  of  the  Church 
of  England  as  set  forth  in  1662. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  form- 
ally recognizes  "the  different  religious 
denominations  of  Christians  in  these 
States"  as  "Churches." 


IV 

OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED 


III 


IV 
OBJECTIONS   CONSIDERED 


W 


E  come  now  to  consider  certain  objections 
which  we  know  will  be  urged  against  the 
foregoing  argument. 

Objection  (j) 


In  answer  to  a  little  work  which  the  present  writer 
published  some  years  ago  on  this  subject, '  the  follow- 
ing criticism  was  made  by  several  prominent  clergy- 
men. We  will  admit,  said  they,  that  the  Church  of 
England  has  never  formally  pronounced  non-epis- 
copal ordination  invalid;  but  we  will  not  admit  that 
she  has  ever  formally  pronounced  it  valid.  She  has 
simply  refused  to  pass  jtidgment  upon  the  matter  one 
way  or  another.     Our  answer  to  this  is  brief. 

First — The  assumption  that  she  has  refused  to 
pass  judgment  one  way  or  another  is  clearly  at 
variance  with  historic  fact;  and 

Second — If  it  were  true,  it  would  he  disastrous  for 
the  "  Catholic''  party  to  make  such  an  admission. 

Proof 
First  Proposition.     That  this  is  manifestly  untrue 

^Apostolic  Succession  and  the  Problem  oj  Unity,  University  Press, 
Sewanee,  Term. 

%  113 


114       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

will    be    evident   from    the   following   official    acts 
already  cited: 

(a)  Archbishop  Grindal's  official  license  to  John 
Morrison,  April  6,  1582 — "approving  and  ratif^dng 
the  form  of  his  (your)  Ordination  .  ,  .  according 
to  the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  Scotland,"  which  Church  was  Presbyterian. 

(b)  Formal  recognition  of  the  validity  of  the 
Presbyterian  ordination  of  Scottish  candidates  for 
Episcopal  Consecration  given  by  Archbishop  Ban- 
croft when  acting  for,  and  in  the  name  of,  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  subsequent  ratification  of  his 
act  by  the  actual  Consecration  administered  by  the 
Church  of  England  on  these  terms. 

(c)  Official  acknowledgment  of  the  inherent  power 
of  the  Presbyterate  to  ordain  formally  made  by  the 
Church  of  England  when  subscribing  to  the  2d 
Resolution  of  the  Assembly,  by  which  the  churches 
of  England  and  Scotland  were  united. 

Other  official  acts  already  referred  to  (some  of 
which  will  doubtless  occur  to  our  readers)  might  be 
cited,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  prove  the  falsity  of 
the  above  assumption. 

Second  Proposition.  That  it  would  be  disastrous 
for  the  "Catholic"  party  to  admit  this,  if  it  were  true, 
is  again  easily  established,  since  to  say  that  the 
Church  has  never  formally  pronounced  non-episcopal 
ordination  to  be  invalid  is  synonymous  with  admit- 
ting that  she  has  never  pronounced  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion as  alone  or  exclusively  valid — ergo, it  is  to  sa}^  that 
she  has  never  asserted  that  Episcopal  ordination  is 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       115 

necessary  or  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church, 
which  is  the  whole  point  of  their  argument.  It  will 
not  do  to  assert,  therefore,  that  the  Church  has 
simply  assumed  this  negative  position,  for  that 
is,  in  itself,  a  fatal  admission.  There  are  some 
propositions  towards  which  a  negative  attitude  is 
simply  impossible,  where  silence  itself  signifies  a  posi- 
tive attitude.  It  will  be  easily  seen,  therefore,  that 
such  an  objection,  even  if  it  were  true,  is  of  absolutely 
no  value  whatever  to  our  opponents,  but  is,  on  the 
contrary,  a  most  complete,  though  unintentional, 
admission  of  the  truth  of  our  whole  argument. 

Objection  (2) 

Perhaps  there  is  no  greater  commentary  upon  the 
logic  employed  by  many  of  the  writers  of  our  ordin- 
ary Church  Manuals  in  defending  their  view  of  the 
necessity  of  the  Episcopate  than  the  glib  way  in  which 
they  point  to  many  passages  in  the  writings  of  the 
Reformers,  or  in  certain  official  utterances  of  the 
Church  herself,  which  uphold  the  Divine  Right  of 
Episcopal  Government,  or  the  fact  of  an  Historic 
Succession  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Yet  who 
can  be  so  blind  as  not  to  see  that  the  mere  right  of 
the  Church  to  perpetuate  the  Episcopate  on  the 
ground  that  it  possesses  Divine  Authority  and  has 
come  down  to  us  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  is  a 
proposition  altogether  distinct  from  the  claim  that  it 
is  the  exclusive  channel  of  such  Divine  Authority, 
and  that  no  other  form  of  Government  can  possess 


Ii6       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

such  authority.  Yet  whenever  any  one  attacks  the 
theory  that  the  Church  of  England  has  ever  claimed 
that  the  Episcopate  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  valid- 
ity of  the  Sacraments,  and  the  being  of  the  Church, 
he  is  immediately  met  with  the  triumphant  retort 
that  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  plainly  asserts  the 
authority  of  the  Episcopate,  and  its  historic  continuity 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles;  that  Cranmer's  Sermon 
on  the  Keys  contains  a  like  defense  of  this  most 
ancient  and  Catholic  Institution;  and  that  number- 
less passages  can  be  adduced  from  the  writings  of 
the  Reformers  to  the  same  effect.  Why,  what  bear- 
ing have  any  of  these  facts  upon  the  point  at  issue? 
Is  it  possible  that  our  critics  cannot  see  any  distinc- 
tion between  the  claim  that  Episcopal  Government 
is  legitimate,  and  the  further  claim  that  it  is  the  one 
and  only  form  of  government  that  is  legitimate;  or 
can  honestly  claim  to  refute  our  contention  that  the 
Church  of  England  nowhere  asserts  the  necessity 
of  the  Episcopate  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church  by 
merely  pointing  out  the  truism  that  she  has  unques- 
tionably defended  the  Episcopate  as  a  legitimate 
institution — existing  by  Divine  Right?  Yet  this  is 
precisely  the  kind  of  logic  with  which  our  popular 
apologists  vanquish  the  objections  here  urged. 
When  we  assert  that  the  Church  nowhere  declares 
that  the  Episcopate  is  the  exclusive  channel  through 
which  the  Divine  Authority  is  transmitted,  we  are 
solemnly  informed  that  the  Ordinal  itself  explicitly 
asserts  the  Divine  Authority  of  the  Episcopate,  the 
Reformers  repeatedly  maintain  it  as  a  fact,  whence. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       117 

of  course,  it  follows  inevitably  that  the  Church  has 
declared  that  no  other  form  of  Government  exists  by 
Divine  Authority,  and  all  non-episcopal  bodies  are 
nothing  more  than  mere  human  societies.  According  ' 
to  this  logic,  because  all  horses  are  animals,  it  should, 
of  course,  be  obvious  that  there  are  no  animals  which 
are  not  horses.  Now  this  kind  of  argument  won't  do. 
If  the  writer  did  not  believe  that  Episcopal  govern- 
ment was  divinely  sanctioned,  he  would  not  be  a 
member  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  to  say  nothing  of 
being  a  clerg^'^man  thereof,  nor  can  he  very  well 
understand  how  any  Episcopal  Church  can  fail  to 
defend  or  justify  its  episcopal  form  of  government 
as  valid,  and  its  acts  as  possessing  Divine  Authority. 
It  would  be  simply  amazing  if  the  Anglican  Reformers 
should  have  taken  such  pains  to  preserve  the  Episco- 
pate, and  not  have  defended  it  as  of  Divine  Authority. 
It  will  not  do  to  obscure  the  real  issue  before  us  in  the 
present  instance,  by  harping  upon  such  well-known, 
self-evident,  but  wholly  irrelevant  facts.  Of  course 
Cranmer  defended  Episcopacy  in  his  Catechism — 
defended  it  as  an  institution  possessing  Divine 
authority.  Yet  where  does  he  assert  therein  (or 
anywhere  else,  for  that  matter,)  that  it  is  the  one  and 
only  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  that  has  the 
sanction  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles?  Not  only, 
therefore,  was  it  natural  that  the  Reformers  should 
defend  the  form  of  government  which  they  had 
adopted,  but  when  the  Puritans  in  attacking  the 
Church  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  Episcopacy  was 
contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  no  form  of 


Ii8       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

government  was  justifiable  in  the  sight  of  God  but 
the  Presbyterian,  they  were  compelled  to  assert  in 
no  uncertain  language  the  Divine  Right  of  Episcopacy 
to  exist.  While  they  did  this,  while  they  asserted 
in  clear  and  unmistakable  terms  that  Episcopacy 
existed  by  Divi?ie  Right,  they  never  went  so  far  as  to 
assert  that  Presbyterianism  did  not.  If  fact,  that 
was  one  of  the  striking  differences  between  the  broad 
liberality  of  the  Anglican  Reformer  and  the  narrow- 
minded  position  of  his  opponent.  While  he  insisted 
that  his  own  form  of  government  was  as  much  sanc- 
tioned by  God  as  the  Presbyterian,  he  did  not  deny 
that  the  latter  possessed  Divine  Authority.  On 
the  contrary,  it  was  the  Puritan,  not  the  Anglican, 
that  resorted  to  this  "exclusive"  hypothesis.  As 
Keble  himself  tells  us,  "it  is  enough,  with  them 
[i.  e.  the  Reformers]  to  show  that  the  government 
by  Archbishops  and  Bishpps  is  ancient  and  allowable; 
they  never  venture  to  urge  its  exclusive  claim,  or  to  con- 
nect the  Succession  with  validity  of  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ments'' (Preface  to  Hooker's  Works).  It  was  left  to 
the  Tractarians  and  "Catholics"  of  a  later  age  to 
apply  the  old  "exclusive"  argument  of  the  Puritans 
regarding  Presbyterianism  in  favor  of  Episcopacy. 
This  is  exactly  what  the  Reformers  did  not  do.  It 
will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  it  is  pure  sophistry  to 
quote  these  many  passages  in  the  works  of  the 
Reformers  wherein  Episcopacy  is  defended  as  an  in- 
stitution possessing  Divine  Authority  and  Catholic  pre- 
cedent, as  evidence  that  the  writers  did  not  admit  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  and  government. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       119 

That  will  not  do.  Of  course,  the  Church  of  England 
defends  Episcopacy  as  of  Divine  Right,  but  where 
does  she  assert  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
being  of  the  Church  and  the  Ministry  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, we  read  in  the  Ordinal  that  both  the  Diaconate 
and  the  Priesthood  are  '^necessary  ...  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,"  but  where  do  we  read  any- 
thing about  the  Episcopate  being  "necessary  ?'' 
Nay,  more — exclusively  necessary?  Why,  the  very 
fact  that  the  Church  here  officially  proclaims  both 
the  Diaconate  and  the  Presbyterate  to  be  "neces- 
sary," but  has  nothing  to  say  about  the  "necessity" 
of  the  Episcopate,  even  if  it  proves  nothing  else,  at 
least  proves  that  the  Episcopate  is  not  exclusively 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church.  This,  in 
itself,  settles  the  whole  question.  It  will  be  seen,  there- 
fore, that  the  mere  fact  that  Cranmer,  and  the 
Reformers  generally,  have  much  to  say  regarding  the 
Divine  Authority  of  the  Episcopate,  and,  in  answer 
to  the  Puritan  charge  that  Presbyterian  government 
alone  had  the  warrant  of  Holy  Scripture,  were  ever 
ready  to  afBrm  that  the  Episcopate  had  equal  claims 
to  Divine  Authority,  has  no  bearing  whatever  upon 
the  issue  before  us.  It  is  a  far  cry  from  such  a 
modest,  reasonable  claim  for  the  legitimacy  of  the 
Episcopate,  to  the  modern  exclusive  assumption  that 
it  is  not  only  legitimate,  but  the  only  legitimate  form 
of  ecclesiastical  government — the  07ily  one  possessing 
Divine  Authority.  Cranmer,  indeed,  stood  for  the 
defence  of  the  Episcopate,  but  he  likewise  stood  for 
the  fact  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  one  and  the 


120       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

same  Order,  and  were  not  even  distinguishable 
*' offices"  in  the  New  Testament.^  It  was  for  this 
very  reason  that  he  stoutly  contended  that  both 
possessed  Divine  Authority,  and  the  Episcopate  could 
not  be  discriminated  against  by  the  Puritans.  It  was 
only  against  the  bitter  attacks  of  this  latter  party, 
who  were  as  extreme  for  exclusive  Presbyterianism, 
as  our  "Catholic"  friends  are  to-day  extreme  for 
exclusive  Episcopacy,  that  these  claims  for  the  Divine 
Right  of  Episcopacy  were  set  forth.  The  fact  is, 
both  are  legitimate,  both  possess  Divine  Authority, 
but  neither  one  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  Episco- 
pacy, therefore,  must  be  defended  by  us  to-day,  not 
upon  the  grounds  of  its  absolute  necessity  to  the  being 
of  the  Church,  as  though  it  were  the  one  and  only 
form  of  Government  that  God  is  willing  to  recognize 
(so  unchurching  all  our  non-episcopal  brethren)  but 
upon  the  grounds  of  legitimacy  and  also  expediency — 
upon  the  ground  that  it  is  the  only  form  of  Govern- 
ment that  can  really  claim  to  have  been  practically 
universal  or  catholic  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  It  is 
the  only  form  that  is  to-day  recognized  by  the  vast 
majority  of  the  Christian  world.  It  is  the  only  form, 
therefore,  that,  for  purely  practical  reasons,  there  is 

'  It  is  well  known  that  Cranmer  held  this  opinion  in  common  with 
his  fellow  Reformers.  It  will  suffice  here,  however,  to  cite  but  one 
passage  in  proof  thereof.  To  the  loth  of  the  Seventeen  Questions 
presented  to  the  Commission  of  Divines  (1540)  to  wit:  "Whether 
Bishops  or  Priests  were  first,"  etc.,  he  replies:  "The  Bishop  and  the 
Priest  were  at  one  time,  and  were  not  two  things,  but  both  one  office,  in 
the  beginning  of  Christ's  Religion."  (Burnet's  Hist.  Reform.,  vol. 
iv.,  p.  114.) 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       12 1 

any  likelihood  that  the  Christian  world  would  ulti- 
mately agree  upon.  It  is  the  form,  that  because  of  its 
antiquity  and  universality,  and  as  manifesting  the 
continuity  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  it 
would  be  not  only  unwise,  but  ivrong,  to  overthrow, 
save  for  the  weightiest  and  the  most  necessary  con- 
siderations. 

We  conclude,  then,  by  saying  that  it  is  utterly 
useless  for  our  opponents  to  urge  the  many  passages 
which  occur  in  the  writing  of  the  Reformers,  and  even 
in  the  Ordinal  and  the  official  formularies  of  the 
Church  herself,  iipliolding  the  Divine  Authority  oj 
Bishops,  and  requiring  all  Clergy  of  this  Church  to 
submit  to  ordination  at  their  hands.  It  is  utterly 
useless  to  urge  such  passages  as  proving  that  the 
Reformers,  and  the  Church  which  they  reorganized, 
admitted  therein  and  thereby  that  110  other  form  of 
government  or  ordination  was  valid  in  the  sight  of 
God.  Those  who  indulge  in  such  arguments  either 
do  not  understand  the  question  at  all,  or  else  they 
are  guilty  of  arrant  sophistry,  for  it  is  simply  im- 
possible for  any  one  to  argue  logically  that  the  one 
proposition  implies  the  other.  In  short,  we  will 
dismiss  the  whole  matter  by  merely  saying  that  if 
there  are  any  who  are  really  conscientious  in  thinking 
that  the  admission  that  ''all  horses  are  animals," 
carries  with  it,  as  a  necessary  corollary,  the  con- 
clusion that  "there  are  no  animals  that  are  not 
horses,"  they  are  welcome  to  hold  their  opinions. 
We  will  certainly  not  endeavor  to  disturb  them  in 
the  serenity  of  their  faith. 


122       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

There  is  another  argument  which  has  been  fre- 
quently urged  of  late  in  the  hope  of  undermining 
that  obvious  difficulty  which  confronts  "Catholics" 
in  attempting  to  defend  their  theory  of  the  limited 
extent  of  the  Church  Universal,  which  we  must  now 
consider.  It  is  quite  true,  say  they,  that  all  who 
belong  to  these  non-episcopal  bodies  are,  as  indivi- 
duals, to  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  Catholic 
Church  because  of  their  Baptism  (which  is,  itself, 
incorporation  into  the  Body  or  Church  of  Christ), 
but  nevertheless,  their  organizations  as  organizations 
are  not  to  be  considered  parts  of  that  Church,  but  are 
nothing  more  than  mere  human,  or  man-made 
societies.  Thus,  in  an  article  entitled  "The  Holy 
Catholic  Church"  contained  in  the  lasj:  Living  Church 
Annual,  published  for  the  year  1914,  we  meet  with 
the  following  expressions  regarding  these  Protestant 
"Sects."  They  are  "composed  in  large  part  of 
persons  who,  being  baptized,  are  members  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  hut  whose  organisations  form  710  part 
of  that  Church  and  are  in  organized  opposition  to  it. 
These  bodies  are  termed  Protestants;  and  when  the 
name  Church  is  applied  to  any  group  of  them,  it  is 
to  be  understood  only  in  a  subordinate  sense,  these 
being  voluntary  organizations  of  men  banded  to- 
gether for  religious  purposes  on  a  common  platform 
or  Confession  of  Faith,  but  not  to  he  esteemed  cor- 
porately  as  branches  of  the  historic  Catholic  Church'* 
(p.  58).  Again,  "In  so  far  as  members  of  these 
Protestant  denominations  have  been  duly  baptized, 
they  are  also  comimonly  reckoned  to  be  members  of 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       123 

the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  though  not  loyally  render- 
ing obedience  to  it;  but  their  various  organizations,  of 
which  there  are  several  hundred,  are  to  be  reckoned  only 
as  voluntary  associations  oj  Christian  people''  (p.  69). 
Of  all  the  objections  commonly  met  with,  this  is 
perhaps  the  most  subtle,  as  the  sophistry  underlying 
it  is  not  obvious  on  first  inspection.  It  will  be  seen 
at  the  outset  that  the  gist  of  the  above  objection  is 
simply  this:  Protestant  individuals  are  members  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  but  Protestant  bodies  are  not. 
We  recognize  the  individuals,  but  not  their  organiza- 
tions as  parts  or  brafiches  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Very  well  then,  the  objection  is  against  organizations, 
not  individuals.  That  is  to  say,  there  is  something 
in  the  form  or  type  of  organization  which  is  vital  or 
essential  to  its  being  regarded  as  a  true  Church,  and 
those  organizations  which  lack  this  particular  form 
or  type  thus  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Chiirch,  are, 
of  course,  ipso  facto  excluded  from  the  organized 
Chiirch  Catholic.  The  issue,  then,  is  clear-cut: 
either  the  particular  form  or  type  which  is  lacking 
to  the  Protestant  Bodies  is  essential  or  not  essential 
to  the  being  of  the  Church.  If  it  is  not  essential,  then, 
of  course,  its  omission  by  these  bodies  is  of  no  par- 
ticular consequence,  and  it  would  be  wholly  un- 
necessary to  mention  it  in  the  discussion.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  essential,  then,  of  course,  its 
omission  by  these  bodies  to-day  is  fraught  with  fear- 
ful consequences,  consequences  of  a  vital  nature,  and 
it  is  only  right  that  the  fact  should  be  emphasized. 
Now,  as  this  last  position  is  the  one  assumed  by  our 


124       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

"Catholic"  friends,  we  ask,  Why  is  this  particular 
form  of  organization  vital  or  essential?  It  cannot  be 
vital  merely  because  it  is  historic.  There  are  many 
features  of  the  organization  of  the  ancient  Catholic 
Church  whose  omission  to-day,  though  we  doubtless 
deplore,  we  do  not  regard  as  vital  or  absolutely  es- 
sential to  the  being  of  the  Church.  The  use  of  vest- 
ments, a  fixed  ritual,  a  Church  Year,  etc.,  are  all  of 
them  historic,  characteristic  features  of  the  ancient 
Catholic  Church,  but  the  omission  of  these  things  in 
themselves  does  not  deprive  these  bodies  of  member- 
ship in  the  Catholic  Church.  What  form  or  feature, 
then,  of  ancient  catholic  organization  is  to  be  ac- 
counted vital  or  essential,  and  Jor  what  reason  is  it 
essejitial?  Obviously,  the  only  form  or  feature  of 
catholic  organization  which  can  logically  be  claimed 
to  be  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church  (if  any  form 
or  feature  be  essential  at  all)  is  that  form  or  feature 
whose  omission  overthrows  the  fundamental  object 
for  which  the  Church  exists,  viz. :  the  salvation  of  hu- 
man souls  through  vital  unio?i  and  communion  with  the 
Life-giving  Head  of  the  Church.  If  there  is  any  form 
of  organization,  whose  omission  causes  this  fearful 
result,  the  cutting  off  of  human  souls  from  vital 
union  and  communion  with  Christ,  that  form  of 
organization  is  unquestionably  essential  to  the  very 
being  of  the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  be 
no  form  of  mere  organization  that  can  effect  this 
awful  result,  it  is  equally  obvious  that  there  is  no 
form  of  organization,  however  important  for  practical 
purposes,  however  stimulating  to  the  zt'e/Z-being  of 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        125 

the  Church,  however  ancient  or  however  catholic 
that  can  possibly  be  regarded  as  essetitial  to  the  being 
of  the  Church.  Is  the  Episcopate  then  essential  to 
the  being  of  the  Church,  or  is  it  not?  Does  its  omis- 
sion debar  any  faithful  soul  from  membership  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  from  union  and  communion  with 
the  Divine  Head  of  the  Church,  or  from  hope  of 
Salvation  in  a  world  to  come?  Assuredly  not,  for 
we  have  just  been  told  by  the  same  writer  that  these 
Protestant  individuals  are,  "being  baptized  .  .  . 
members  of  the  Catholic  Church" — i.  e.,  members  of 
Christ's  Body,  with  the  Eternal  Life  of  that  Divine 
Body  in  them.  If  by  Baptism  they  have  thus  been 
made  "members  of  Christ, "  so  by  the  same  Baptism 
they  have  also  been  made  "children  of  God,  and 
inheritors  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  hence  of  Life 
Eternal.  If  then,  secure  in  their  membership  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  secure  in  their  spiritual  union  with 
Christ,  secure  in  their  hope  of  Eternal  Salvation,  it  is 
evident  that  all  that  is  necessary  for  their  security, 
all  that  is  absolutely  essential  for  their  Spiritual  Life 
and  Salvation  is  already  assured  under  the  forms  they 
now  possess.  Wherein,  then,  can  this  particular  form 
which  they  do  not  possess,  be  regarded  as  essential? 
If  it  be  not  essential  to  tJie  salvation  of  any  individual 
Soul  within  the  Church,  how  can  it  be  essential  to  the 
Church  itself?  If  this  form  of  government  or  organ- 
ization be  not  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the  people 
living  under  it,  to  what  is  it  essential?  The  only 
object  of  any  form  of  government  or  organization 
is  to  secure  certain  ends,  either  necessary  or  desirable. 


126       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

for  the  existence  of  the  people  living  under  it.  If, 
therefore,  any  one  form  can  be  said  to  be  necessary 
or  essential  at  all,  it  can  only  be  because  the  end 
which  it  secures  is  absolutely  necessary  or  essential 
to  the  existence  of  the  people  living  under  it.  In 
short,  if  forms  of  government  or  organization  be  not 
necessary  for  the  individuals  that  live  under  them,  they 
are  not  necessary  at  all.  No  form  is  necessary  merely 
for  form's  sake.  We  repeat,  therefore,  that  if  no  one 
form  of  government  can  be  shown  to  be  absolutely 
necessary  to  secure  what  is  alone  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  the  salvation  of  individual  souls,  viz. :  their 
admission  into  the  Church  Catholic,  their  vital  union 
and  communion  with  the  Divine  Head  and  their  con- 
sequent eternal  existence  in  a  world  to  come,  it  is 
perfectly  clear  that  no  one  form  of  government  or 
organization  is  necessary  or  essential  in  the  Church 
at  all.  The  utmost  that  can  be  said  for  this  particu- 
lar form  is  that  it  possesses  many  advantages  of  an 
unessential,  but,  nevertheless,  of  a  very  desirable 
nature  which,  though  not  needed  to  insure  the  actual 
being  or  existence  of  the  Church  and  its  members,  is 
none  the  less  very  important  to  insure  their  well- 
being,  a  proposition  which,  it  is  needless  to  say,  we 
would  be  the  very  last  to  dispute.  We  affirm,  there- 
fore, that  if  any  one  form  of  government  or  organiza- 
tion is  necessary  in  the  Catholic  Church  at  all,  it  is 
necessary  for  this  purpose,  to  secure  the  salvation  of 
souls,  the  sole  purpose  for  which  the  Church  was 
established.  Hence,  if  necessary  to  the  Church  at 
all,  it  is  necessary  to  the  existence  of  every  Christian 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       127 

man,  and  vice  versa,  if  not  necessary  to  the  existence 
of  every  Christian  man,  it  is  not  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  the  Church,  There  is  no  other  possible 
position  to  be  taken.  Only  those,  therefore,  who  are 
prepared  to  show  that  the  absence  of  the  Episcopate 
invalidates  the  spiritual  life  and  safety  of  the  individ- 
ual men  and  women  who  worship  in  these  non- 
episcopal  bodies,  can  logically  maintain  that  it  is 
essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church.  To  those,  there- 
fore, who  are  unwilling  to  take  this  extreme  position, 
who  shrink,  very  naturall}^,  from  the  awful  conse- 
quence involved,  who,  in  other  words,  dare  not  assert 
that  these  persons  are  actually  cut  off  from  the  hope 
of  Salvation;  for  them  to  assert  that  the  Episcopate  is 
necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  is  simply  absurd. 
The  two  hypotheses  are  mutually  exclusive.  One 
may  hold  the  one  or  the  other,  but  he  cannot  hold 
both.  As  proof  that  this  inference  is  unavoidable, 
and  that  the  "Catholic"  theory  of  the  Episcopate 
implies  this  and  nothing  less  than  this,  we  have  only 
to  inform  our  readers  that  the  great  leaders  of  the 
movement  recognized  this  fact  years  ago,  and  hesi- 
tated not  to  admit  it.  In  short,  it  is  only  the 
unphilosophic  "  Catholic, "  the  man  who  does  no  think- 
ing for  himself,  but  accepts  the  opinions  of  his  party 
ready-made,  and  without  question,  that  imagines 
that  the  High  Chiu-ch  view  of  the  necessity  of  the 
Episcopate  to  the  being  of  the  Church  can  be  made 
to  harmonize  with  the  liberal  opinion  that  the  mem- 
bers of  non-episcopal  bodies  are,  even  as  individuals, 
in  true,  spiritual  union  with  Christ,  and,  thus,  secure 


128       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

in  the  hope  of  Salvation.  Their  own  leaders  think 
nothing  of  the  kind,  for  the  real  theologians  of  the 
movement  have  long  ago  told  us,  in  so  many  words, 
that  the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  if  necessary 
to  the  hemg  of  the  Church,  the  Episcopate  must  be 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  every  Christian  man,  the 
Salvation  of  every  individual  Soul.  To  show  that  we 
are  not  misrepresenting  them,  we  will  here  submit 
a  few  quotations  from  their  works.  "The  main 
points,  insisted  on  by  them  [the  Tractarians],  accord- 
ing to  their  own  accounts,  are  the  following:  The 
doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  as  a  rule  of  practice ; 
that  is.  First,  that  the  participation  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  is  essential  to  the  maintenance  of 
Christian  life  and  hope  in  each  individual.  Second, 
that  it  is  conveyed  to  individual  Christians,  07ily  hy 
the  hands  of  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles  and  their 
delegates.  Third,  that  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles 
are  those  who  are  descended  in  a  direct  line  from  them, 
by  the  imposition  of  hands ;  and  that  the  delegates  of 
these  are  the  respective  Presbyters  whom  each  has 
commissioned ....  The  following  memorandum, 
drawn  up  by  Mr.  Newman,  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished members  of  the  School,  explains  more  fully 
the  original  intention  and  peculiar  doctrines  of  the 
Tractarians : 

"(i)  That  the  only  way  of  Salvation  is  the  par- 
taking of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  sacrificed 
Redeemer. 

"  (2)  That  the  means,  expressly  authorized  by  Him 
for  that  purpose,  is  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  His  Supper. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       129 

"(3)  That  the  security,  by  Him  no  less  expressly 
authorized,  for  the  continuance  and  due  application 
of  that  Sacrament,  is  the  Apostolical  Commission  of 
the  Bishops,  and,  tmder  them,  the  Presbyters  of  the 
Church, "  etc.     Again,  '"A  Church, '  says  the  British 
Critic,  their  principal  organ  in  England,  'is  such  only 
by  virtue  of  that  from  which  it  obtains  its  unity — and 
it  obtains  its  unity  only  from  that  in  which  it  centres, 
viz.:  the  Bishop.     And,  therefore,  all  its  teaching 
must  be  through  the  medium  of  the  Episcopate,  as 
is  beautifully  expressed  in  the  Act  of  the  Synod  of 
Bethlehem,  which  the  Eastern  Church  transmitted 
to  the  non-juring  Bishops.     Therefore  we  declare 
that  this  hath  ever  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  that  the  Episcopal  dignity  is  so  necessary  in  the 
Church  that  without  a  Bishop  there  cannot  exist  any 
Church,  nor  any  Christian  man;  no,  not  so  much  as  in 
name.     For  he  is,  as  Successor  of  the  Apostles,   .    .    . 
the  source  of  and  fountain,  as  it  were,  of  all  those  Mys- 
teries of  the  Catholic  Church,  through  which  we  obtain 
Salvation  (i.  e.,  the  Sacraments).     And  we  hold  the 
necessity  of  a  Bishop  to  he  as  great  in  the  Church  as  the 
breath  of  life  is  in  man,  or  as  the  sun  is  in  the  system  of 
creation,'''  etc.  (Schmucker's  Hist,  of  All  Religions, 
Art.    Tractarians).     From    these    quotations,    it    is 
perfectly  plain  that  the  great  leaders  of  the  Tracta- 
rian  movement  based  their  whole  theory  as  to  the 
necessity  of  the  Episcopate  to  the  being  of  the  Church 
upon  the  ground  that  it  was  necessary  to  the  Salvation 
of  each  individual  Soul  within  the  Church,  and  to  any 
one  who  -easons  at  all  on  the  subject  it  is  perfectly 


130       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

clear  that  this  is  the  only  basis  upon  which  the  claim 
can  be  defended  at  all.  If  necessary  at  all,  it  is 
necessary  for  this  reason.  It  cannot  he  necessary 
merely  for  Form's  sake.  It  is  a  perfectly  plain  pro- 
position, then:  Men,  as  individuals,  depend  upon 
the  Life-giving  Sacraments  for  their  spiritual  exist- 
ence or  Salvation,  and  these  Life-giving  Sacraments 
depend  for  their  validity,  in  turn,  upon  their  adminis- 
tration under  the  authority  of  the  Bishops,  hence 
the  Episcopate  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  being 
of  the  Church,  because  absolutely  essential  to  the 
spiritual  existence  or  Salvation  of  each  individual  in 
the  Church.  Now  this  may  be  true  or  untrue  but 
one  thing  is  absolutely  certain.  If  true — the  official 
position  of  this  Church  is  false;  or,  if  not  true,  the 
view  of  the  Tractarians  and  their  present  day  dis- 
ciples is  false.  For  it  is  beyond  all  question  that 
the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  after  her,  has  officially  declared  in  no  uncertain 
terms  that  the  individual  members  of  the  non-episco- 
pal bodies  are  not  cut  off  from  the  Body  of  Christ 
(and  so  denied  the  hope  of  Salvation)  because  of 
their  lack  of  the  Episcopate,  but  on  the  contrary, 
are  at  this  very  moment,  simply  hy  virtue  of  their 
Baptism,  to  say  nothing  more  (for  even  Lay  Baptism 
is  valid,  in  the  sight  of  this  Church),  in  vital  union  and 
communion  with  the  Divine  Head  of  the  Church,  and 
so  secure  in  the  hope  of  Salvation  in  the  Body  or  Church 
of  Christ.  The  Church  has  officially  declared,  in 
other  words,  that  they  are  by  virtue  of  their  valid 
Baptism    (if   nothing    more)    ''members    of   Christ, 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       131 

children  of  God,  arid  mheritors  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,''  that  is  inheritors  of  Salvation.  Two  con- 
clusions, then,  follow  inevitably  from  these  facts: 

(i)  That  the  true,  logical  position  of  the  Trac- 
tarians  which  contends  for  the  necessity  of  the  Epis- 
copate upon  the  ground  that  it  is  necessary  to  the 
personal  salvation  of  each  individual  Soul,  is  in  plain, 
irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  official  view  of  the 
Church,  which  has  time  and  again  recognized  the 
individual  baptized  members  of  non-episcopal  bodies, 
as  living  members  of  Christ's  Body  secure  in  the  hope 
of  Salvation,  despite  the  absence  of  an  Episcopate. 
And  that 

(2)  The  illogical  position  of  the  average  "  Catholic" 
to-day  which  contends  for  the  absolute  necessity  of 
the  Episcopate  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  while 
simultaneously  admitting  that  the  baptized  individ- 
uals  living  under  a  w<?w-episcopal  government  must 
none  the  less  be  reckoned  true,  living  members  of  the 
Body  of  Christ  secure  in  the  hope  of  Salvation,  is 
even  worse  than  illogical,  because  a  transparent 
absurdity.  It  is  nothing  less  than  the  hopeless 
attempt  to  straddle  a  contradiction.  We  repeat, 
that  this  last  position,  unfortunately  espoused  by  so 
able  a  writer  as  the  Editor  of  the  Living  Church,  is 
not  only  a  contradiction  of  reason,  but  contrary  to 
true,  "catholic"  doctrine.  Either  you  must  go  the 
whole  length  of  the  Tractarians,  and  stand  for  the 
inevitable  consequences  which  flow  from  their  funda- 
mental principles,  or  you  must  repudiate  these  prin- 
ciples themselves.     There  is  no  half-way  ground  to 


132       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

stand  on.  Any  attempt  to  straddle  the  contradiction 
implied  in  the  belief  that  Episcopacy  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  and  yet  that 
individual  men  and  women  can  be  saved  in  the 
Catholic  Church  without  it,  is  sheer  nonsense.  The 
true  philosophers  of  the  movement  saw  this  plainly, 
at  the  very  outset,  and  were  never  guilty  of  such 
manifest  inconsistency,  but  boldly  stood  by  their  prin- 
ciples, declaring  that  the  Episcopate  was  "jo  neces- 
sary in  the  Church,  that  without  a  Bishop  there  cannot 
exist  any  Church,  nor  any  christian  man;  no,  not 
so  MUCH  AS  IN  NAME. "  If  you  really  believe  then 
that  the  Episcopate  is  essential  to  the  being  of  the 
Chiirch,  there  is  but  one  logical  and  consistent 
attitude  that  you  can  assume.  It  is  briefly  this: 
No  Bishop — No  Church — No  Sacraments — No  Spiri- 
tual Life — No  Christian  man  whatsoever.  For  it  is 
perfectly  plain,  that  if  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  does 
not,  and  cannot  exist  without  Bishops,  then  where 
there  are  no  Bishops,  there  is  no  Church,  and  where 
there  is  no  Church,  there  are  no  Sacraments,  and 
where  there  is  neither  Church  nor  Sacraments,  there 
are,  of  course,  no  Christian  men.  For  a  Christian  man 
is  one  who  hath  union  and  communion  with  the  Body 
of  Christ,  which  Body  is  the  Church.  Where,  there- 
fore, the  Holy  Catholic  Church  is  not,  there  Christian 
men  are  not,  and  vice  versa.  We  re-affirm,  therefore, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  logically  to  assert 
that  he  believes  that  the  members  of  non-episcopal 
bodies  are,  as  individuals,  members  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  and  simultaneously  to  affirm  that 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       133 

Episcopal  Government  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  the  Catholic  Church.     The  two  state- 
ments are  contradictory.     Finally,  we  are  well  aware 
that  there  are  a  few  who  will  seek  refuge  behind  all 
this  again  in  the  somewhat  vague  assumption  that 
they  mean  only  that  the  Episcopate  is  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  the  Visible  Church— not  the  Invisible; 
and  if  they  are  disposed  to  intrench  themselves  in 
this  position,  rather  than  surrender  unconditionally, 
we  will  accept  the  challenge,  and  attack  them  in  this 
last  citadel  also.     The  assumption  means,  if  it  means 
anything  at  all,  that  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  that 
there  are  individuals  who  are  in  real  spiritual  union 
and  communion  with  the  Divine  Head  of  the  Church, 
but  who,  nevertheless,  have  never  joined  the  true 
visibly  organized  Body  of  the  Church.     Such  persons 
are  indeed  "  members  of  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ " 
—the  divisible  Church,  to  which  belong  all  the  com- 
pany of  the  redeemed  in  Heaven,  but  with  this 
Church,  whose  bounds  are  necessarily  unknown  to  us, 
we  are  not  here  concerned.     We  are  speaking^  not 
of  the  Mystical  or  Invisible  Body,  but  of  the  Visible 
Body,  the  Church  which  is  formally  organized  and 
manijest  here  in  the  world.     We  assert  that  to  the 
being  or  existence  of  this  Visible  Church  the  Episco- 
pate is  an  absolute  essential.     Now  our  answer  to  this 
is  brief.     Is  not  Baptism  the  ''outward  and  visible 
sign"  of  incorporation  into  this   Visible  Church  of 
God  on  earth,  and  is  not  Baptism  valid  independently 
of  all  episcopal  administration?     Has  not  the  Church 
oficially,  and  even  our  "CathoHc"  brethren  reluc- 


134       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

tantly,  but  squarely,  admitted  that  Protestants  have, 
by  Baptism,  been  incorporated  into  the  Visible 
Church  Catholic  without  the  aid  of  the  Episcopate?  Is 
not  this  admitting  that  the  Visible  Church  Catholic 
does  here  and  now  exist  in  many  lands,  with  thou- 
sands of  men  and  women  in  living,  vital,  visible 
communion  with  it,  and  that  without  the  aid  of  the 
Episcopate?  Turn  it  or  twist  it  how  you  will,  there 
is  no  escape  from  the  inevitable  conclusion,  the  Epis- 
copate is  not  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Visible 
Church  Catholic,  nor  to  the  vital  union  therewith 
of  any  individual  soul. 

But  aside  from  this  consideration  of  the  matter, 
it  is  nothing  less  than  absurd  for  any  man  to  deny 
the  plain,  historic  fact  that  the  Church  of  England 
has  repeatedly  recognized  the  non-episcopal  bodies  as 
Churches.  She  has  not  only  recognized  them  in 
general  terms,  but  she  has  recognized  particular 
non-episcopal  bodies  specifically — calling  them  by 
name  {e.  g.  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Canon  55).  She 
has  recognized  their  Sacraments  as  valid  (e.  g. 
Patent  of  Edward  VI.,  1550 ;  License  given  John 
Morrison,  1582,  etc.).  She  has  recognized  their 
Ministries  (e.  g.  License  given  John  Morrison; 
Bancroft's  Official  Recog.  Scotch  Presbyters;  Prac- 
tice of  the  Church  for  over  a  hundred  years,  etc.). 
She,  has,  in  short,  given  them  every  formal  recogni- 
tion that  she  has  given  other  Episcopal  bodies.  Nay, 
more,  she  has  gone  even  farther,  for  in  recognizing 
the  Roman  Church  she  has  emphasized  the  fact  that, 
though  a  Church,  it  is  nevertheless  a  corrupt  and 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       135 

erring  Church  (c.  g.  Article  XIX.),  whereas  in  recog- 
nizing the  non-episcopal  bodies,  she  has  repeatedly 
dwelt  upon  the  fact  that  they  are  not  erring,  but 
"Reformed  Churches"  {e.  g.  XIV.  Carol.  IL,  Sec.  15, 
etc.;  Synop.  Papismi,  vol.  vi.,  p.  368).  Thus  she 
pronounces  them  Churches  of  a  far  purer  type  than 
the  Roman  Church.  There  is  not  the  least  doubt 
that  the  Reformers,  while  admitting  all  to  be  true 
or  valid  branches  of  the  Catholic  Church,  yet  regarded 
the  Protestant  Churches  of  Scotland  and  the  Con- 
tinent as  purer  and  less  corrupt  branches  than  either 
the  Greek  or  the  Roman.  Furthermore,  there  is 
another  point  that  must  needs  be  emphasized  to 
silence  any  that  may  be  disposed  to  cavil  about 
specific  acts  and  utterances,  viz.:  all  the  foregoing 
propositions  stand  or  fall  together.  That  is  to  say, 
there  is  no  denying  one,  without  denying  all,  and  no 
admitting  one,  without  admitting  all.  For  example, 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  admitting  that  the  Church 
of  England  recognized  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Scotland  as  a  true  Church,  and  yet  simultaneously 
denying  that  she  admitted  the  validity  of  its  non- 
episcopal  Ministry  or  the  validity  of  its  Sacraments, 
both  Baptism  and  Holy  Communion.  No  such  thing 
as  admitting  that  she  recognized  this  wow-episcopal 
Church  as  a  true  Church  of  God,  a  true  branch  of  the 
CathoHc  Church,  and  yet  affirming  that  the  Episco- 
pate, which  this  Church  did  not  have,  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  being  of  a  Church.  No  contending 
that  the  Sacraments  are  an  essential  mark  of  the 
Church,  and  yet  affirming  that  in  recognizing  the 


136       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Chiirch  of  Scotland  to  be  a  true  Church,  she  has  never 
admitted  that  the  Sacraments  of  said  Church  are  valid. 
If  she  has  pronounced  any  non-episcopal  body  what- 
ever to  be  a  true  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church,  she 
has,  therein  and  thereby,  recognized  the  validity  of 
its  Ministry  and  Sacraments,  and  has,  simultaneously, 
admitted  that  the  Episcopate  is  not  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  a  Church.  Or,  again,  if  she  has  recognized 
the  Sacraments  of  any  non-episcopal  body  as  valid, 
she  has  therein  and  thereby  recognized  the  parties 
at  whose  hands  they  have  been  administered  as 
validly  ordained  ministers  of  the  Church  Catholic,  and 
the  body,  thus  possessed  of  a  true  Ministry  and  valid 
Sacraments,  to  be  a  genuine  Church.  Yet  again,  if 
she  has  pronounced  the  Ministry  of  any  non-episco- 
pal body  valid,  she  has  therein  and  thereby  pro- 
nounced its  Sacraments  valid,  and  the  body  itself  a  true 
branch  of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  will  not  do,  there- 
fore, to  split  hairs  on  the  meaning  of  any  particular 
utterance  with  regard  to  some  one  or  other  of  the 
above-named  matters,  for  the  recognition  of  any  one 
feature  carries  with  it  the  recognition  of  all  the  rest. 
If  you  admit,  therefore,  that  she  has  formally  recog- 
nized the  Church  of  Scotland,  or  any  other  non- 
episcopal  body,  as  a  true  Church,  you  are  compelled 
to  admit  that  she  has  recognized  both  its  Ministry 
and  its  Sacraments  as  valid,  or  else  you  must  deny 
that  either  Ministry  or  Sacraments  are  necessary  to 
a  Church  at  all,  and  in  either  case,  you  are  admit- 
ting that  the  Episcopate  is  not  necessary  to  the  ex- 
istence  of    the    Church.      Finally,    if    any    further 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       137 

argument  is  needed,  we  will  throw  the  official  utter- 
ances of  the  Church  into  one  terse  syllogism: 

She  has  officially  declared  that  "  the  Visible  Church 
of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which 
the  pure  Word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  Sacra- 
ments be  duly  ministered  according  to  Christ's 
ordinance  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are 
requisite  to  the  same."     (Art.  XIX.) 

She  has  officially  declared  that  the  non-episcopal 
Church  of  Scotland  is  a  true  part  of  "  Christ's  Holy 
Catholic  Church''  (Bidding  Prayer,  Canon  55). 

Ergo — The  non-episcopal  Church  of  Scotland  is 
"a  Congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure 
Word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  Sacraments  be  duly 
ministered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance  in  all  those 
things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same. ' '  And, 
we  may  add,  that  since  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland  here  referred  to  were  not  ministered 
under  Episcopal  authority,  it  follows  that  such 
Episcopal  Authority  was  not  regarded  as  among 
"those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same. " 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that,  from  every  point  of  view, 
the  "Catholic"  position  is  untenable.  Nothing 
short  of  a  miracle  of  logic  could  render  their  views 
harmonious  with  the  official  views  of  this  Church. 
They  clearly  do  not  represent  the  Church  at  all.  That 
they  are  entitled  to  hold  what  doctrinal  views  they 
please  upon  the  Church,  the  Episcopate,  or  any  other 
matter,  goes  without  sajang,  but  that  they  can  justly 
maintain  that  their  opinions  represent  the  official 
opinions  of  this  Church,  is  simply  out  of  the  question. 


138       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Hence,  if  the  Church  yields  to  their  suggestion  to 
change  its  name,  and  consents  to  adopt  the  title, 
The  American  Catholic  Church,  therein  and  thereby 
officially  unchurching  all  the  non-episcopal  bodies 
round  about  her,  she  can  do  so  only  by  repudiating 
all  her  former  principles.  In  short,  the  proposal  to 
change  the  name  of  the  Church,  as  it  stands,  is  nothing 
more  or  less  than  a  proposal  to  change  its  foundation 
principles. 


DO    "CATHOLICS"    REPRESENT   THE 
CHURCH? 


139 


V 


DO    "CATHOLICS"    REPRESENT    THE 
CHURCH? 

WE  have  now  shown,  as  we  beHeve,  conclu- 
sively, that  the  present  wide-spread  opin- 
ion that  the  Episcopate  is  necessary  to  the 
being  of  the  Church,  with  its  inevitable  corollary  that 
the  non-episcopal  bodies  form  no  part  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  and  that  their  individual  members 
are  cut  off  from  the  hope  of  Salvation,  because,  as 
Bishop  Hobart  expressed  it,  ^^cut  off  from  Communion 
with  Christ,''  is  a  theory  wholly  repugnant  to  the 
official  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  and  our  own 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  Our  people  should  not 
be  misled  by  it.  We  wish  to  emphasize  this  the 
more  inasmuch  as  there  are  many  moderate  Church- 
men, far  removed  from  the  extreme  position  of  the 
"Catholic"  party,  who  have  nevertheless  been 
prevailed  upon  to  accept  this  exclusive  theory  of  the 
Episcopate.  They  accept  it  without  understanding 
its  true  significance,  or  appreciating  the  dangerous 
consequences  which  flow  from  it.  We  wish  to  say, 
therefore,  as  clearly  and  emphatically  as  we  know 
how,  that  the  theory  which  holds  the  Episcopate  to  be 

HI 


142       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

absolutely  essential  to  the  Church,  so  that  without  it 
no  Church  can  exist,  the  theory  which  excludes  all 
the  non-episcopal  bodies  from  the  Church  Catholic, 
and  so  justifies  the  title  The  American  Catholic  Church 
as  the  logical  title  for  this  Communion,  because  the 
only  Episcopal  organization  native  to  America  since 
its  first  settlement  by  Europeans,  is  a  theory  which 
by  its  very  nature  necessarily  implies  the  unchurch- 
ing of  all  other  Protestants  as  individuals.  It 
denounces  them  as  "cw/  off  from  communion  with 
Christ,  ^^  hence  cut  off  from  the  one  and  only  source  of 
Eternal  Life,  and  so  denied  the  hope  of  Life  Eternal, 
denied  the  hope  of  Salvation.  It  means  this,  and 
nothing  less  than  this,  for  the  plain  reason  that  if  the 
Episcopate  be  not  necessary  or  essential  to  the  Church 
on  this  ground,  there  is  no  other  ground  that  can 
be  discovered  for  asserting  its  necessity.  You  may, 
indeed,  speak  much  of  its  importance  in  the  Church, 
you  may  even  conceive  it  to  be  necessary  or  essential 
to  the  well-being  of  the  Church,  but  when  you  go 
further  than  this,  and  assert  its  necessity  to  the  very 
being  of  the  Church  because  that  without  a  Bishop 
there  can  be  no  valid  Ministry  and  no  valid  Sacra- 
ments, you  mean  and  can  mean  but  one  thing,  viz. : 
that  it  is  necessary  to  individual  incorporation  into 
the  Church  of  Christ,  to  personal  union  and  com- 
munion with  Christ,  to  personal  reception  of  the 
Life  by  the  Soul,  hence  necessary  to  personal  Salva- 
tion. Moreover,  the  best  proof  that  we  are  not  mis- 
representing the  logical  consequences  of  the  theory 
is  the  fact  that  its  own  greatest  expounders  have 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       143 

given  precisely  this  interpretation  of  it.  The  Episco- 
pate is  necessary,  they  tell  us,  because  "the  partici- 
pation of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  essential 
to  the  maintenance  of  Christian  life  and  hope  IN 
EACH  INDIVIDUAL,"  and  "it  [the  Sacrament  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ]  is  conveyed  to  individual 
Christians  only  by  the  hands  of  the  successors 

OF  THE  APOSTLES  AND  THEIR  DELEGATES"  (Schmuck- 

er's  Hist.  All  Religions,  p.  291).  ''We  hold  the 
necessity  of  a  Bishop  to  be  as  great  in  the  Church  as  the 
breath  of  life  is  in  man,  or  as  the  sun  is  in  the  system 
of  creation'' — ''the  Episcopal  dignity  is  so  necessary  in 
the  Church,  that  without  a  Bishop  there  cannot  exist 
any  Church,  nor  any  christian  man;  no,  not  so 
MUCH  AS  IN  name"  {British  Critic).  Says  Bishop  Ho- 
bart,  "Where  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion 
with  the  Church  by  the  participation  of  its  or- 
dinances, at  the  hands  of  the  duly  authorized  Priest- 
hood, is  the  INDISPENSABLE  CONDITION  OF  SALVATION" 

{Companion  to  the  Altar,  p.  202).  And  again,  "Who- 
ever is  in  communion  with  the  Bishop,  the  supreme 
governor  of  the  Church  upon  earth,  is  in  communion 
with  the  Head  of  it;  and  whoever  is  not  in  com- 
munion   WITH    the    bishop,    IS    THEREBY    CUT    OFF 

from  communion  with  CHRIST"  {A  Companion  to 
the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  59).  If  this  be  not  a  clear, 
unequivocal  assertion  that  the  Episcopate  is  neces- 
sary to  the  Salvation  of  each  individual  Soul,  we  should 
like  to  know  what  is?  And  if  this  does  not  mean  that 
the  members  of  non-episcopal  bodies  are  not  as 
individuals  cut  off  from  the  Catholic  Church  (the 


144       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

significance  of  their  Baptism  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding ') ,  ''cut  off  from  communion  with  Christ, " 
and  so  cut  off  from  hope  of  Personal  Salvation,  we 
should  like  to  know  what  it  does  or  can  mean?  In 
short,  according  to  their  own  statements,  it  is  as 
plain  as  any  fact  can  be  that  the  Episcopate  is  re- 
garded as  necessary  to  the  Church,  because  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  those  Sacraments  which  alone  can 
give  Salvation  to  each  individual  Soul.  Hence  it  is 
necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Church  because  neces- 
sary to  the  being  of  every  Christian  man.     To  deny 

'  This  is  only  another  instance  of  the  illogical  and  wholly  incon- 
sistent position  of  "Catholics."  They  are  forced  to  admit  that 
Lay  Baptism  (to  say  nothing  of  Baptism  at  the  hands  of  Ministers 
of  Non-Episcopal  Churches)  is  valid,  and  yet  in  spite  of  this  admission 
they  normally  speak  of  the  Episcopate  as  necessary  to  the  validity 
of  the  "Sacraments^' — {plural) — thus  including  Baptism.  We 
are  not  responsible,  though,  for  the  inconsistency  of  the  statement 
that  "Catholics"  assert  that  Episcopacy  is  necessary  to  the 
validity  of  the  "Sacraments"  which  we  have  frequently  made  in 
these  pages.  It  remains  a  fact  that  they  do  make  just  this  state- 
ment, despite  their  admissions  to  the  contrary.  The  same  writer 
who  has  given  us  so  much  valuable  testimony  as  to  the  validity  of 
Lay  Baptism,  nevertheless  asserts  elsewhere :  "  The  Catholic  Church 
has  ever  held  this  doctrine,  that  true  ministrations  of  Grace  depend  on 
Episcopal  Ministries,  and  has  always  regarded  all  other  ministries, 
whether  assumed  to  be  conferred  by  Presbyters,  undertaken  at 
will,  or  bestowed  by  a  call  from  the  Congregation,  to  be  wholly  in- 
valid. .  .  .  Every  Mission  of  their  hands  is,  therefore,  absolutely 
null  and  void,  according  to  Scripture,  Authority,  Apostolic  prac- 
tice, and  the  unbroken  tradition  of  Eighteen  Centuries"  (Blunt, 
Annot.  Bk.  Com.  Pr.). 

Note. — "Every  Mission  of  their  hands"  is  "null  and  void."  Does 
not  this  necessarily  include  Ba^/WOT.?  If  not,  why  not?  "The  Apos- 
tolical Succession  of  the  Ministry  is  Essential  to  the  right  adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments"  (plural).     Ch.  Handy  Diet. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       145 

that  it  means  this,  and  to  talk  about  its  being  neces- 
sary to  the  existence  of  organized  bodies  or  branches 
of  the  Church  only,  is  to  talk  sheer  nonsense.  Aside 
from  the  fact  that  the  statement  means  nothing  (as 
we  have  already  shown)  it  is  flatly  denied  by  the 
very  persons  who  make  it.  What  "Catholic"  will 
admit  that  the  Holy  Communion  is  not  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  each  human  soul,  or  that  it  can  be 
administered  validly  by  any  persons  who  are  not 
either  "the  Successors  of  the  Apostles"  or  "their 
delegates"?  Yet  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  Sacra- 
ment when  administered  under  other  conditions,  is 
to  assert  that  the  Episcopate  is  necessary  to  the 
spiritual  life  of  each  individual  soul,  however  we  may 
attempt  to  obscure  the  fact  by  harping  upon  the 
meaningless  assertion  that  it  is  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  corporate  branches  of  the  Church  only. 
While  it  is  demonstrable  that  this  is  the  real  meaning 
of  the  whole  theory,  yet  the  most  amazing  featiire 
of  the  entire  problem  under  consideration  is  the  fact 
that  so  many  moderate  Churchmen,  of  the  most 
broad  and  liberal  opinions,  have  allowed  themselves 
to  be  misled  into  believing  that  this  purely  Tracta- 
rian  or  "Catholic"  theory  of  the  Episcopate  is  the 
orthodox,  official  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England 
handed  down  from  the  days  of  the  Reformation. 
Not  only  does  a  most  superficial  acquaintance  with 
the  works  of  the  English  Reformers  clearly  refute  the 
idea,  but  "Catholics"  themselves  assert  that  the 
Articles  and  other  official  formularies  of  the  Church 
are  the  products  of  an  "uncatholic  age,"  and  that 


146       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

their  (the  "Catholics'  ")  avowed  object  is  "to  correct 
the  mistakes  of  the  Reformation. "  How  Churchmen 
can  possibly  be  misled  into  imagining  that  such  a 
party,  avowedly  hostile  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  men  who  framed  the  official  formularies 
of  this  Church,  can  represent  in  their  doctrinal  views 
and  practices  the  real,  official  teachings  of  this 
Church  or  can  believe  that  their  proposal  to  Change 
the  Name  of  the  Church,  does  not  signify  any 
fundamental  change  of  doctrinal  position  or  that 
that  theory  of  the  Episcopate  upon  which  alone  such 
a  Change  of  Name  can  be  justified  is  the  true,  official 
doctrine  of  the  Episcopate  for  which  the  Church 
has  ever  stood,  seems  to  us  well  nigh  incompre- 
hensible. To  those  of  us  who  from  our  earliest  in- 
fancy have  been  taught  to  speak  with  pride  and 
veneration  of  the  men  who  drafted  our  Prayer  Book, 
Articles,  and  other  formularies,  who  have  ever  held 
in  sacred  reverence  the  names  of  those  who  perished 
in  the  flames  of  Smithfield,  believing  them  to  be 
accounted  worthy  along  with  Ignatius,  Poly  carp, 
Justin,  and  many  another  confessor  of  those  ancient 
days,  of  the  sacred  name  of  Martyr,  ay,  to  those  of 
us  who  listening  to  the  dying  words  of  that  rugged 
hero,  old  Hugh  Latimer,  uttered  even  as  the  crack- 
ling fires  swirled  round  him,  "Stand  fast,  Master 
Ridley,  and  play  the  man.  We  shall  light  a  candle 
this  day  in  England  which  by  God's  Grace  shall  never 
be  extinguished":  to  those  of  us  who  listening  to 
these  words  have  ever  felt  their  inspiration  as  a 
Prophecy  Divine,  a  solemn  call  from  the  Most  High 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       147 

God  Himself  to  keep  alive  these  principles  forever: 
to  those  of  us  who  have  been  reared  in  such  a  faith 
as  this  the  following  words  of  Dr.  Littledale,  one  of 
the   ablest   exponents   of   the   so-called    "catholic" 
principles,  are  almost  incomprehensible,  and  fill  us 
only  with  pain  and  sadness.     "Robespierre,  Danton, 
Marat,  St.  Just,  and  Couthon,  merit  quite  as  much 
admiration  and  respect  as  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley, 
and  Hooper ....     So  far  they  stand  on  a  higher 
moral  level  than  the  base  traitors  who  were,  and 
deservedly,  executed,  blunder  and  folly  as  that  exe- 
cution was,  by  Mary  I.     It  is  absolutely  impossible 
for  any  just,  educated,  and  religious  man,  who  has 
read  the  history  of  the  time  in  genuine  sources,  to 
hold  two  opinions  about  the  Reformers.     A  Chiu-ch 
which  could  produce  in  its  highest  lay  and  clerical 
ranks  such  a  set  of  miscreants  as  the  leading  EngHsh 
and  Scottish  Reformers,  must  have  been  in  a  per- 
fectly rotten  state;  as  rotten  as  France  was  when  the 
righteous  judgment  of  the  great  Revolution  fell  upon 
it."     (Lecture,  London  Times,  May  23,  1868.)     So 
too.  Lord  Halifax,  President  of  the  English  Church 
Union,  an  Acknowledged  leader  of  the  "Catholic" 
party,  is  quoted  as  saying— "The  principles  of  the 
Reformation  are  things  to  be  repented  of  with  tears, 
and  in  ashes."     No  wonder  that  holding  such  prin- 
ciples as  these  our  "Catholic"  friends  are  anxious  to 
"correct  the  mistakes"  of  these  men,  to  purge  the 
Church  of  those  "Protestant"  doctrines  which  we 
now  know   to   have  been   the   invention   of   ''base 
traitors''  and  ''miscreants. "     Yet,  in  spite  of  the  fact 


148       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

that  the  English  Reformers  were  "such  a  set  of  mis- 
creants," in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  entire  "Re- 
formation," as  some  are  pleased  to  call  it,  was 
all  a  miserable  "mistake,"  these  same  "Catholic" 
Churchmen  are  (strange  to  say)  immediately  offended 
if  any  one,  taking  them  at  their  word,  insists  that 
their  own  tenets  are  absolutely  irreconcilable  with 
the  true  official  doctrines  of  this  Church,  which  these 
"miscreants"  incorporated  in  her  formularies.  They 
cannot  understand  how  any  one,  particularly  a 
Clergyman  of  the  Church,  can  have  the  temerity  to 
assert  that  a  view  of  the  Episcopate,  which  they 
hold  and  upon  which  they  propose  to  change  the 
Name  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  Church 
Herself,  is  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the  teach- 
ings of  these  "miscreants"  and  the  official  doctrines 
which  they  themselves  formulated  for  this  Church. 

Miscreants  or  not,  the  Prayer  Book,  Ordinal, 
Articles,  and  all  the  official  formularies  of  this 
Church,  were  the  work  of  these  men.  If  their  doctrines 
thus  formulated  are  not  the  official  doctrines  of  this 
Church,  she  has  none  at  all.  Why  "Catholics" 
should  expect  the  doctrines  of  men  whom  they 
distinctly  tell  us  were  "miscreants"  and  "traitors" 
to  coincide  with  their  views,  we  cannot  understand. 
We  can  understand,  indeed,  why  they  should  take 
issue  with  us  as  regards  our  view  of  the  Episcopate 
and  oiir  conception  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Why 
they  should  object  to  our  statement  that  these 
"miscreants,"  whose  "mistakes"  they  are  now  try- 
ing to  correct,  emphatically  denied  their  '^catholic'' 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       149 

theory  oj  the  Episcopate,  when  one  of  their  best 
authorities  (Keble)  has  himself  told  us  that  the 
English  Reformers  "never  venture  to  urge  its  exclu- 
sive claim,  or  to  connect  the  Succession  with  the 
validity  of  the  Holy  Sacraments"  we  cannot  under- 
stand. Why  they  should  find  fault  with  our  state- 
ment that  a  view  of  the  Church  Catholic  founded 
upon  a  theory  of  the  Episcopate  which  these  "mis- 
creants" rejected,  is  foreign  to  the  teachings  of  said 
"miscreants, "  and  the  official  doctrines  of  that  Church 
which  they  (said  "miscreants")  reformed  we  do  not 
see.  Lastly,  why  they  should  further  object  to  our 
statement  that  the  proposal  to  change  the  name  of 
the  Church  to  one  that  will  uphold  the  distinctive 
"Catholic"  conception  of  the  Episcopate  and  the 
Church,  is  to  overthrow  the  Protestant  principles  of 
these  "traitors,"  and  undermine  all  the  official  doc- 
trines of  that  Church,  which  these  said  "traitors" 
themselves  drew  up  and  formulated,  these  are  mat- 
ters which,  we  freely  confess,  are  absolutely  incom- 
prehensible to  us.  Why  should  "Catholics"  expect 
that  their  view  should  represent  the  official  doctrines 
of  this  Church,  when  the  said  official  doctrines  were 
framed  by  a  set  of  "miscreants,"  and  when  the  whole 
object  of  their  own  work,  as  they  distinctly  tell  us, 
is  to  ^'correct  the  mistakes'^  which  these  men  made? 
We  confess  that  the  mystery  is  well-nigh  inscrutable. 
And  yet — think  of  it ! — there  are  many  people,  among 
them  moderate  churchmen,  who  regard  the  opinions 
which  we  have  here  expressed  concerning  the  Epis- 
copate and  the  Church,  as  nothing  less  than  heresy. 


150       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Think  of  it!  Heresy,  because  the  official  view  of  the 
Church  herself !  Heresy,  because  the  teaching  of  the 
EngHsh  Reformers  who  gave  us  our  Prayer  Book  and 
formulated  all  our  principles  and  doctrines !  Heresy, 
because  the  teaching  of  the  Reformers,  and  not 
of  the  Tractarians  and  present-day  "Catholics"! 
Heresy,  because  directly  opposed  to  the  doctrines 
of  those  who  openly  tell  us  that  the  whole  object  of 
their  movement  is  to  "correct  the  mistakes  of  these 
men" — to  overthrow  the  work  of  the  "miscreants" 
that  reformed  (?)  the  Chiirch  of  England,  who  framed 
our  Prayer  Book,  Ordinal,  Articles,  and,  in  fact,  all 
the  official  formularies  of  the  Church!  If  this  be 
heresy,  we  are  certainly  glad  to  be  accused  of  it,  as 
with  all  the  English  Reformers  behind  us,  and  prac- 
tically every  great  prelate  in  the  Church  of  England 
from  the  days  of  Cranmer  downward  to  the  Oxford 
Movement  heartily  endorsing  us,  we  feel  that,  after 
all,  we  are  in  fairly  good  company.  Now  why  assume 
this  inconsistent,  and  utterly  indefensible  position? 
Why  should  not  "Catholics"  come  out  squarely  and 
openly  to  the  world,  and  say.  Yes,  we  know  that  this 
is  not  the  teaching  of  the  English  Reformers,  or  of 
that  Church  whose  doctrines  and  formularies  they 
framed?  We  know  that  it  is  not  the  teaching  of  their 
Prayer  Book,  their  Ordinal,  their  Articles,  or  any  of 
their  official  documents.  We  know,  in  fact,  that 
what  we  teach  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  Church  at 
all.  We  do  not  pretend,  therefore,  to  represent  the 
official  attitude  of  this  Church  in  any  of  these  matters 
we  are  advocating.     We  know  that  our  view  of  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        151 

Episcopate  and  its  necessity  to  the  being  of  a  Church, 
is  not  the  official  teaching  either  of  the  Church  of 
England  or  of  her  daughter,  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  We  freely  recognize  the  fact  also  that  our 
view  of  the  extent  and  character  of  the  Church 
Catholic,  founded  as  it  is  upon  a  theory  of  the  Epis- 
copate distinctly  antagonistic  to  that  held  by  the 
Reformers,  is  equally  as  opposed  to  the  official  view 
of  the  Chiu-ch.  As  a  further  consequence  of  all  this  we 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  proposed  title,  '^The 
American  Catholic  Church,^'  which  we  are  now  asking 
you  to  adopt,  is  a  title  whose  significance  can  never 
be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  this  Church.  We  freely  admit  all  this.  We 
do  not  attempt  to  advocate  all  these  measures  in 
the  name  of  this  Church,  as  representing  her  official 
views  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  we  realize  clearly  that 
the  official  position  of  this  Church,  fixed  as  it  has  been 
by  men  that  were  any  thing  but  "Catholics,"  can 
never  be  said  to  countenance  our  "Catholic" 
doctrines.  We  do  not  wish  to  mislead  any  one,  there- 
fore into  thinking  that  we  stand  for  the  official  doc- 
trines of  this  Church  in  what  we  now  teach  and 
advocate.  On  the  contrary,  we  wish  it  clearly  under- 
stood that  we  are  not  in  sympathy  with  the  author- 
ized tenets  of  this  Church.  We  believe  that  the  men 
who  framed  the  Prayer  Book,  the  Ordinal,  the  Ar- 
ticles, and  in  fact  all  the  official  formularies  of  the 
Church,  were  men  who  were  anything  but  qualified 
for  such  a  task.  Not  to  speak  of  their  personal 
characters,  which,  to  say  the  least,  were  far  from 


152       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

admirable,  they  were  utterly  ignorant  of  the  true 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  in  seek- 
ing to  "reform"  the  abuses  of  their  day,  they  made  a 
botch  of  the  whole  undertaking.  In  short,  we  believe 
that  their  work  was  anything  but  a  success.  We 
believe  that  the  whole  Reformation,  so  called,  was  a 
great  mistake,  and  what  we  propose  here  and  now  to 
do  is  to  "correct  the  mistakes"  of  these  ignorant 
fanatics.  We  want  to  substitute  for  your  present 
official,  but  none  the  less,  erroneous  doctrines,  the 
true  Catholic  Doctrines  of  antiquity.  We  say 
openly,  we  wish  to  change  the  fundamental  principles 
of  this  Church,  and  make  them  conformable  to  what 
we  conceive  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  primitive,  un- 
divided Church.  Why  not  come  out  squarely  and 
say  this,  rather  than  pretend,  as  they  are  now  doing, 
that  they  contemplate  no  change  of  fundamental 
principles  whatever  and  that  they  are  really  loyal 
to  all  the  essential  doct-riyies  of  this  Church}  How  can 
they  consistently  assert  that  ''hy  such  change  there 
was  {is)  intended  710  changed  relationship  ...  to- 
wards the  principles  established  by  and  through  the 
Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England  as  those  prin- 
ciples are  enshrined  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,''^ 
which  they  did  not  hesitate  to  do  at  the  last  Conven- 
tion at  Cincinnati,  and  simultaneously  to  persist  in 
declaring  that  the  Reformation  was  a  great  blunder, 
the  English  Reformers,  in  particular,  a  set  of  ^'mis- 
creants,'' and  that  they  propose  to  ''correct  the  mis- 
takes'' of  these  ''base  traitors,"  which  "mistakes" 
have  been  ' ' enshrined  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer" 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       153 

and  are  everywhere  manifest  In  all  the  official  formu- 
laries of  the  Church.  This  kind  of  argument  will  not 
do.  It  is  as  plain  as  daylight  from  the  statements  of 
"Catholics"  themselves,  we  repeat,  that  they  regard 
the  Prayer  Book,  Articles,  and,  in  fact,  all  the  formu- 
aries  of  the  Church  as  "the  product  of  an  uncathoUc 
age, "  and  that  their  avowed  object  is  to  change  these 
products  of  the  Reformation,  fundamentally.  As 
one  of  the  first,  and  more  radical  steps  in  this  direc- 
tion, they  propose  to  change  the  name  of  the  Church 
itself,  to  get  rid  of  the  miserable  word  "Protestant'* 
(the  root  of  the  whole  evil),  and  to  substitute,  in 
place  of  the  present  title,  that  of  "  The  American 
Catholic  Church' * — a  name  which  commits  this 
communion  to  a  view  of  the  Episcopate  and  of  the 
Church  Catholic  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the 
view  of  the  English  Reformers,  and  absolutely  irre- 
concilable with  the  official  doctrinal,  and  historic 
position  of  this  Church. 

If  they  would  be  consistent,  then,  "Catholic'* 
Churchmen  must  cease  to  claim  that  by  such  Change 
of  Name  they  do  not  intend  in  any  way  to  alter  the 
*' principles  established  by  or  through  the  Reformation 
of  the  Church  of  England,''  while  simultaneously 
asserting  that  "the  principles  of  the  Reformatio7i  are 
things  to  be  repented  of  with  tears  and  in  ashes,"  and 
that  their  whole  object  is  "to  correct  the  mistakes  of 
the  Reformation."  We  repeat,  this  kind  of  logic 
will  not  do.  They  must  take  one  side  or  the  other. 
They  must  either  stick  to  their  Cincinnati  Resolu- 
tion,  and   show   that   the   proposed   Name — "The 


154       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

American  Catholic  Church" — involves  no  doctrine 
that  is  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  English 
Reformers,  and  the  standing  official  doctrines  of  this 
Church;  or  else  they  must  unequivocally  repudiate 
this  solemn  covenant  of  1910,  and  adhere  loyally  to 
the  repeated  declarations  of  their  leaders,  that  their 
purpose  is  to  tear  out  root  and  branch  the  principles 
of  the  {Protestant)  Reformation,  which  though  the 
authorised,  official  doctrines  of  the  Church  to-day,  are 
the  product  of  an  "uncatholic^^  age — the  work  of 
"miscreants,"  and  "traitors''  to  the  primitive  Faith. 
We  have  demonstrated  that  the  former  is  impossible 
(the  task  we  set  out  to  accomplish),  we  leave  it  to 
them,  therefore,  to  deny  logically,  if  they  can,  that 
their  whole  object  is  to  overthrow  the  official  doc- 
trines of  the  Church,  framed  by  the  Reformers  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century,  reaffirmed  by  the  Revisors  of 
1662,  and  again  by  our  own  Convention  of  1789. 
In  short,  we  leave  it  to  them  logically  to  deny,  if  they 
can,  that  their  object  is  to  overthrow  the  Foundation 
principles  of  this  Communion. 


VI 
THE  KIKUYU  CONFERENCE 


155 


VI 
THE  KIKUYU   CONFERENCE 

SINCE  the  foregoing  pages  were  written,  an 
incident  has  occurred  which  has  excited  much 
discussion  throughout  the  ecclesiastical  world, 
and  which  bearing,  as  it  does,  directly  upon  the  point 
at  issue,  affords  a  yet  more  profitable  illustration  of 
thetruth  of  our  argument.  Now  comes  the  Bishop  of 
Zanzibar,  after  fifteen  years  of  missionary  work  in  the 
Ministry  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  inquire  where 
Ecclesia  Anglicana  stands  upon  certain  fundamental 
matters  of  doctrine.  This  query  at  the  very  beginning 
of  his  career  as  a  student  of  theology,  might  be 
natural  enough,  but  at  this  late  date,  after  years  of 
service  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  the  honored 
position  of  a  Bishop  of  that  Commimion,  is,  to  say 
the  least,  a  little  surprising.  Yet  so  it  is.  The 
entire  scope  of  his  inquiries  covers,  indeed,  a  number 
of  matters  with  which  we  are  not  here  concerned; 
matters  relating  principally  to  certain  recent  develop- 
ments of  Modernism.  When,  however,  he  comes  to 
touch  upon  the  action  of  two  of  his  brother  Bishops, 
at  the  Kikuyu  Conference,  with  regard  to  a  proposed 
scheme  of  federation  with  non-episcopal  Churches, 

157 


158       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  with  a  public  rebuke  administered  by  the  Lord 
Bishop  of  St.  Albans  to  one  of  the  Priests  of  his 
Diocese  "who  had  invoked  Our  Lady,  and  two  other 
Saints, "  we  reach  what  appears  to  be  the  true  casus 
belli  of  the  whole  article.  He  wastes  no  time  in 
characterizing  the  liberal  principles  enunciated  by  his 
fellow  Bishops  at  the  Kikuyu  Conference  as  "heresy. " 
It  is  equally  plain  that  he  regards  the  position  as- 
sumed by  the  Bishop  of  St.  Albans  as  no  less  heretical, 
for  he  speaks  of  it  as  an  attempt  "to  attack  and 
abolish  practices  of  piety  which  have  the  sanction 
of  the  whole  of  Catholic  Christendom."  So  serious 
are  both  these  matters,  in  his  estimation,  that  he 
requests  that  the  first  offence  "be  heard  and  judged 
in  our  Provincial  Court,"  and,  in  the  same  open 
letter,  implores  St.  Albans  "to  reconsider  his  (your) 
decision  about  the  Invocation  of  Saints,  and  so 
strengthen  our  corporate  witness  to  the  Catholic 
Faith  in  this  hour  of  great  danger."  He  thinks  it 
imperative  that  these  matters  be  brought  to  trial  as 
Ecclesia  Anglicana  does  not  know  her  own  mind,  and 
until  she  does  know  it,  "and  learns  to  express  it,  she 
will  be  of  use  neither  in  the  sphere  of  reunion  nor  in 
the  mission-field."  Now  it  must  be  confessed,  at 
the  outset,  that  there  is  something  startlingly  sugges- 
tive of  the  truth  in  this  last  statement  of  Zanzibar's 
that  Ecclesia  Anglicana  "stands  to-day  at  the  judg- 
ment-bar innocent  alike  of  narrow-mindedness  and 
broad-mindedness,  but  proven  guilty  of  double- 
mindedness, "  and  that  "until  she  recovers  a  single 
mind,  and  knows  it,  and  learns  to  express  it,  she  will 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       159 

be  of  use  neither  in  the  sphere  of  reunion  nor  in  the 
mission-field."  The  trouble  is  that  it  is  startingly 
suggestive  of  the  truth  only,  without  being  a  real  state- 
ment of  the  truth.  That  the  Bishops  and  Clergy 
of  the  Church  have,  for  years  past,  been  afraid  to 
express  themselves  openly  as  a  body,  upon  the  great 
issues  involved  in  the  conflict  of  "Catholic"  and 
Protestant  principles,  is  only  too  true.  Whenever 
such  unpleasant  questions  have  arisen,  from  time 
to  time,  and  been  laid  before  Convocation  or  Conven- 
tion for  definite  solution,  these  assemblies  have  either 
ignored  them  altogether,  or  else  replied  with  solemn 
pronouncements,  of  great  length,  and  full  of  words, 
but  absolutely  unintelligible  as  a  definite  answer  to 
the  appeal.  Such  evasions  of  the  issue,  belauded  as 
evidence  of  the  profound  wisdom,  breadth,  and  com- 
prehensiveness of  the  assemblies  making  them,  have 
very  naturally  disgusted  honest  inquirers  on  either 
side,  and  so  far,  they  amply  justify  the  Bishop's 
charge  of  "  double-mindedness, "  and  his  warning 
that  unless  Ecclesia  Anglicana  abandon  such  a  vacil- 
lating policy  with  the  public,  "she  will  be  of  use 
neither  in  the  sphere  of  reunion  nor  in  the  mission- 
field.  "  But  while,  for  many  years  past,  the  attitude 
of  our  Convocations  and  Conventions  towards  such 
appeals  has,  indeed,  been  strangely  vacillating  and 
ambiguous,  yet  the  implication  that  Ecclesia  Angli- 
cana as  an  organized  body,  as  an  historic  institution^ 
has  not  in  her  official  acts,  Articles  and  Formularies 
taken  a  definite,  unqualified  and  absolutely  unequivocal 
position  on  each  and  every  one  of  the  issues  here  under 


i6o       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

discussion  is  not  only  untrue,  but  absurdly  so.  It  is 
simply  amazing  that  one  who  occupies  no  less  a  position 
than  that  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  should  be,  appar- 
ently ignorant  of  the  fact.  It  may  be  only  too  true 
that  when  pressed  with  the  questions — What  view 
does  Ecclesia  Anglicana  take  as  to  the  necessity  of 
the  Episcopate  to  the  being  of  the  Church?  What 
is  her  official  attitude  towards  non-episcopal  bodies? 
What  has  she  affirmed  respecting  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  Ordination?  What  does  she  think 
about  the  practice  of  Invoking  the  Saints,  etc.?  the 
Bishops  and  Clergy  of  the  Church  generally,  evade 
the  issue,  and  do  not  care  to  give  a  definite  answer. 
That  the  Church  herself  has  not,  long  ago,  officially 
committed  herself  to  a  definite  position  on  all  these 
matters  is  quite  a  different  proposition.  The  fact 
that  our  Convocations  and  Conventions  do  not  care 
to  tell  the  public  openly  just  what  the  Church  has 
officially  stated  with  regard  to  these  matters,  may  be 
and  undoubtedly  is,  a  vacillating  policy.  It  does 
not,  however,  argue  that  the  Church  has  not,  long 
ago,  assumed  a  definite,  official  attitude  with  respect 
to  them,  or  prove  that  her  leading  representatives  are 
ignorant  as  to  what  that  official  attitude  is.  The 
truth  is  so  many  individuals  within  our  Communion 
have,  of  late  years,  become  converted  to  "Catholic" 
theories  and  practices,  and  the  movement  which, 
at  the  first  was  merely  suffered,  has  now  become  so 
strong,  that  it  has  become  quite  a  delicate  matter  for 
our  Convocations  and  Conventions  to  speak  out,  and 
tell  the  whole  truth.     It  is  not  that  the  Church  has 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        i6i 

not  a  defxnite  official  view  of  these  matters,  but,  in 
view  of  existing  conditions,  it  is  not  politic  to  publish 
that  definite  official  view  to  the  world.  Knowing  as 
they  do  full  well,  that  the  official  attitude  of  the 
Church  is  only  too  definite  on  these  matters  and, 
simultaneously,  only  too  antagonistic  to  "Catholic" 
doctrines  and  practices,  it  is  the  part  of  worldly 
wisdom  to  evade  these  questions  as  far  as  possible. 
Accordingly,  they  prefer  to  cover  up  their  weakness 
under  garb  of  an  assumed  "comprehensiveness" 
and  breadth  of  vision,  which  commits  itself  to  noth- 
ing definite,  one  way  or  another,  and  which  is  charm- 
ingly hailed  by  its  advocates  as  an  infallible  evidence 
of  "Catholicity."  As  if  true  Catholicity  could  exist 
apart  from  a  definite,  protestant  attitude  toward 
error.  As  we  have  said  before,  the  amazing  thing 
is,  not  that  the  Church  finds  difficulty  in  answering 
these  embarrassing  questions  when  put  to  it,  but  that 
a  prominent  Bishop  of  the  Church  should  be  igno- 
rant of  the  fact  that  the  Church  has  a  definite,  official 
view  on  all  these  matters,  or  knowing  it,  that  he  should 
have  the  temerity  to  challenge  her  to  assert  it,  in 
opposition  to  the  usurped  claims  of  "Catholics"  to 
represent  her  to  the  world.  0  Temporal  0  Mores! 
Has  it  indeed  come  to  this !  Has  it  come  to  pass  that 
the  men  whose  opinions  were  once  tolerated  only 
within  this  Church,  and  who  scarcely  ventured  to 
express  them  openly  for  fear  of  being  subjected  to 
the  charge  of  treason,  have  now  so  grown  apace,  that 
not  only  do  they  fearlessly  expound  their  doctrines 
from  press  and  pulpit,  using  the  fair  name  of  the 


162       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Church  herself  to  back  them,  but,  mirahile  dictu! 
have  even  reached  that  high  degree  of  assurance, 
when  one  of  them,  a  Bishop  in  the  Church,  can  pub- 
licly challenge  three  of  his  brother  Bishops  to  show 
cause  why  they  may  not  lawfully  be  convicted  of 
heresy!  He  challenges  two  of  them  for  putting  into 
practice  certain  principles  which  their  own  Church 
has  officially  authorized,  and  put  into  practice  time 
and  time  again,  and  the  third  for  the  yet  more  griev- 
ous crime  of  enforcing,  within  the  confines  of  his 
Diocese,  the  observance  of  an  Article  of  Religion  set 
forth  by  authority  of  the  Church  herself,  and  which 
every  single  Clergyman  of  the  Church,  not  excepting 
the  plaintiff,  had  been  required  to  subscribe  and  had 
subscribed  at  the  very  outset  of  his  ministry.  Has  it 
come  to  pass  that  a  man,  calling  himself  a  "Catholic," 
can  challenge  this  Church  to  her  face  to  assert  that 
her  own  authorized  Articles,  Acts  and  Formularies 
are  to  be  accepted  as  her  official  and  orthodox  teach- 
ings, rather  than  his  own  private  opinions,  or  the 
opinions  of  his  party?  Yet  it  is  precisely  this,  and 
nothing  less  than  this,  that  the  bishop  of  Zanzibar 
has  done.  Because  the  Bishops  of  Mombasa  and 
Uganda  entered  into  a  federation  with  certain  non- 
episcopal  bodies  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the 
common  missionary  work  in  which  they  were  all 
engaged,  and  because  such  action  involved  communi- 
cation with  "a  Church  without  Episcopacy" — a 
recognition  of  the  lawful  authority  of  their  Ministry, 
the  admission  of  unconfirmed  persons  to  the  Holy 
Communion,  in  short,  the  recognition  of  ''Protestant'* 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       163 

as  opposed  to  "Catholic''  principles,  they  are  openly- 
charged  with  "heresy/'  with  being  unfaithful  to  the 
truth  for  which  "a  Bishop  of  the  Ecdesia  Anglicana" 
is  supposed  to  "stand,"  "the  Truth  he  has  vowed  to 
hand  on  to  others."  "I  have  charged  the  Bishops  of 
Mombasa  and  Uganda  with  heresy  in  their  teaching  of 
the  meaning  and  value  of  Episcopacy;  I  would  also 
add  that,  to  my  mind,  they  and  their  followers  are  as 
seriously  wrong  in  remainhig  in  an  Episcopal  Minis- 
try which  is  to  them  merely  an  outward  form  and  to 
their  Protestant  neighbours  a  rock  of  offence.  On  the 
day  that  a  Bishop  can  communicate  with  a  Protestant 
Minister,  deliberately  and  of  set  purpose,  one  of  them  is, 
it  seems  to  me,  bound  in  conscience  to  surrender  the 
outward  form  which  means  so  little  to  him,  and  yet  so 
powerfully  hinders  the  work  of  reunion."  He,  there- 
fore, begs  "our  Metropolitan,  that  the  matter  of  the 
Kikuyu  Conference  be  heard  and  judged  in  our 
Provincial  Court,  before  him  and  his  comprovincial 
Bishops, "  etc.  Now,  when,  we  shouki  like  to  inquire, 
did  it  become  "heresy"  for  a  Bishop  of  the  Church 
of  England  "to  communicate  with  a  Church  without 
Episcopacy?"  If  contrary  to  the  authorized  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  why  did  she  officially  license  the 
practice  of  such  communication,  first  by  Royal  Pa- 
ent  in  1550  ( Vide,  Patent,  Edward  VI.) ,  and  afterwards 
in  numbers  of  cases  {e.  g.,  the  License  issued  by  Arch- 
bishop Grindal,  1582)  already  cited,  relating  to  in- 
dividual Presbyterian  Divines  celebrating  the  Holy 
Sacrament  in  the  Church  of  England.  This  practice 
was  common  for  over  one  himdred  years.     Why  did 


i64       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

the  men  who  framed  her  ordinances  themselves  freely 
communicate  in  the  Foreign  Reformed  Churches? 
How  was  it  that  the  English  Commissioners  at  the 
Synod  of  Dort  received  the  Sacrament  at  the  hands 
of  Dutch  Ecclesiastics  without  reproof  from  the  au- 
thorities at  home?  Why  was  not  Archbishop  Usher 
(despite  the  eminence  of  his  position)  brought  to 
trial  for  testifying  his  "communion  with  these 
Churches,"  which  he  did  "honor  as  true  members  of 
the  Church  Universal,"  and  particularly  for  affirming : 
*T  do  profess  that,  with  like  affection^  I  should  receive 
the  blessed  Sacrament  at  the  hands  of  the  Dutch  Minis- 
ters, if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I  should  do  at  the  hands 
of  the  French  Ministers  if  I  were  in  Charentone?^* 

Or,  better  still  (since  we  are  told  that  all  this 
"heresy"  was  eradicated  by  the  Revisers  of  1662), 
why  was  not  Cosin,  the  leader  of  these  Revisers, 
brought  to  trial,  not  merely  for  endorsing  such  an 
heretical  practice,  but  for  publicly  affirming  that  the 
Church  of  England  did  not  then,  and  had  never  at 
any  time  prohibited  such  a  practice?  [To  wit: 
"If  the  Church  and  Kingdom  of  England  have  ac- 
knowledged them  (as  they  did  in  admitting  of  them 
when  they  fled  thither  for  refuge,  and  placing  them 
by  public  authority  in  divers  of  the  most  eminent 
cities  among  us,  without  prohibition  to  any  of  our  own 
people  to  go  and  communicate  with  them) ,  why  should 
we,  that  are  but  private  persons,  utterly  disclaim 
their  communion  in  their  own  country?  .  .  . 
Considering  there  is  no  prohibition  of  our  Church 
against  it  {as  there  is  against  our  communicating  with 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       165 

the  Papists,  and  that  well  groimded  iipon  the  Scripture 
and  Will  of  God),  I  do  not  see  but  that  both  you,  and 
others  that  are  with  you,  may  {either  in  case  of  necessity 
when  you  cannot  have  the  Sacramerit  among  yourselves, 
or  in  regard  of  declaring  your  unity  in  professing  the 
same  religion,  which  you  and  they  do)  go  otherwhile 
to  communicate  reverently  with  them  of  the  French 
Church.'*^]  Add  to  these  words,  the  unequivocal 
statement  of  all  the  Revisers  made  in  the  Preface  to 
the  new  Prayer  Book,  that  they  had  not  in  any  of 
their  alterations  changed  any  formerly  '^established 
doctrine,  or  laudable  practice  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
la7id,"  and  does  it  not  begin  to  look  as  though  we 
shall  have  to  include  Co  sin  afid  all  the  Revisers  of 
1662  in  the  same  noble  army  of  "heretics,"  "mis- 
creants" and  "base  traitors"  to  which  Cranmer, 
Ridley,  Latimer  and  all  the  Sixteenth  Century 
Reformers,  who  inaugurated  these  "established  doc- 
trines" and  "laudable  practices,"  and  who,  particu- 
larly in  the  matter  of  Episcopacy,  "never  venture 
to  urge  its  exclusive  claims,  or  to  connect  the  Succession 
with  the  validity  of  the  Holy  Sacraments''  belong? 
Add  still  again  to  these  facts,  the  further  one,  that 
such  practice,  with  the  doctrinal  principles  involved 
in  it,  thus  officially  endorsed  by  the  Church  up  to  and 
through  the  period  of  the  Restoration  at  which  the 
last  authorized  changes  and  alterations  were  made, 
has  continued  withotd  interruption  in  many  quarters 
down  to  the  present  hour,  and  what  becomes  of  this 
presumptuous  charge  of  ''heresy''?     Why  should  not 

'  Cited  by  Goode,  On  Orders,  p.  67. 


166       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

"a  Bishop  of  the  Ecclesia  Anglicana"  as  long  as  he  is 
true  to  the  official  doctrines  of  Ecclesia  Anglicana, 
and  has  not  been  deceived  into  thinking  that  "  Catho- 
lic" principles  represent  her, — why  should  he  not 
'^communicate  with  a  Protestant  Minister?  What  is 
that  mysterious  *' Truth' ^  in  the  defense  of  which 
every  ''Bishop  of  the  Ecclesia  Anglicana''  is  supposed 
to  stand,  and  which  "he  has  vowed  to  hand  on  to 
others,"  that  forbids  him  communicating  with  "a 
Church  without  Episcopacy"?  Let  us  have  it.  Fur- 
ther, Why  should  not  every  Bishop  of  Ecclesia  Angli- 
cana who  does  stand  faithful  to  those  principles  for 
which  "a,  Bishop  of  the  Ecclesia  Anglicana"  is  sup- 
posed to  stand,  and  v/hich  "he  has  vowed  to  hand 
on  to  others,"  communicate  with  Protestants,  and 
endeavor  "to  protestantize  the  world"?  Is  it  a  crime 
to  be  a  Protestant  in  a  Protestant  Church?  And  if 
Ecclesia  Anglicana  be  not  a  Protestant  Church,  we  ask 
why  is  she  not?  Because  a  few  "  Catholics  "  deny  the 
assertion?  After  all,  which  statement  is  to  be  regarded 
as  authoritative,  the  statement  of  '^Catholics"  gen- 
erally that  the  Church  of  England  is  ?wt  Protestant, 
or  the  Church  of  England's  own  official  statement 
that  she  is?  Is  the  charge  of  "heresy"  preferred 
against  these  men,  because  of  their  outrageous  pro- 
testant  proclivities,  to  be  substantiated  on  the 
assertions  of  Convocation  and  Parliament,  or  is  the 
whole  matter  to  be  infallibly  settled  upon  the  ipse 
dixit  of  Zanzibar?  Which  is  "official"?  If  Ecclesia 
Anglicana  be  not  a  Protestant  Church  then  why,  in 
the  Act  of  Union  between  Ireland  and  Great  Britain 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        167 

in  1800,  was  it  officially  enacted  that  the  Churches  of 
England  and  Ireland  should  be  united  in  ''one  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  to  be  called  the  United 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland"?  Was  that  action 
official,  or  was  it  not?  If  the  Christianity  set  forth 
by  her,  as  the  established  Church  of  the  Realm,  be 
not  Protestant  to  the  core,  then,  why,  in  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  drawn  up  by  "the  Lords  Spiritual  {i.  e.,  the 
Bishops)  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,"  officially 
defined  therein  as  ''the  Protestant  Religion  .  .  .  of 
this  Kingdom,''  the  latter  itself  declared  to  be  a  "Pro- 
testant Kingdom,''  and  for  the  very  purpose  of  pre- 
serving such  Protestantism  inviolate,  is  it  further 
decreed  that  none  but  "Protestants"  shall  ever  inherit 
the  throne?  If  the  Church  established  by  law  to 
preserve  "the  Protestant  Religion"  in  a  "Protestant 
Kingdom"  be  not  a  Protestant  Church — what  is  it? 
And  if  the  Bishops  and  Clergy  of  such  a  Protestant 
Church  are  not  supposed  to  uphold  Protestant  prin- 
ciples, pray,  what  are  they  expected  to  do?  How 
can  a  Bishop  in  a  Protestant  Church  be  convicted  of 
"heresy"  merely  for  teaching  Protestant  principles, 
or  seeking  "to  protestantize  the  world"?  Moreover, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  should  like  to  venture  the 
further  inquiry,  just  how  a  "Catholic"  Bishop  man- 
ages to  justify  his  position  in  a  Protestant  Church? 
If  as  "Catholics"  themselves  tell  us,  the  principles 
they  stand  for  are  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the 
principles  of  Protestantism,  how  can  they  logically 
claim  to  represent  a  Church  which  has  taken  par- 
ticidar  pains,  through  a  formal  and  official  action^ 


1 68      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

published  to  the  world,  to  inform  all  men  that  she  is 
a  Protestant  Body — the  established  Church  of  a  Pro- 
testant Kingdom?  Or,  by  what  miracle  of  Logic,  can 
such  a  "Catholic"  Bishop,  professing  a  creed  ab- 
solutely irreconcilable  with  the  principles  of  Protest- 
antism, appeal  to  a  Protestant  Church  to  convict  one 
of  its  Bishops  of  ^^ heresy''  upon  the  ground  that  he 
has  been  teaching  Protestant  rather  than  '^Catholic" 
doctrines?  If  such  action  can  be  logically  defended 
to-day,  verily,  the  age  of  miracles  is  not  yet  ended. 
Of  all  the  pretensions  of  "Catholics,"  the  claim  that 
that  Ecclesia  Aitglicana,  and  her  American  daughter , 
are  not  Protestant  Churches,  and  pledged  to  Protest- 
ant doctrines,  are  the  most  extravagant  and  prepos- 
terous. We  might  press  these  embarrassing  questions 
indefinitely.  Why,  if  the  Church  of  England  be  not 
Protestant,  does  she  further  require  all  her  Clergy  in 
the  Oath  of  Abjuration  to  acknowledge  her  as  such, 
and  how  does  the  Bishop  of  Zanzibar  explain  his  own 
action  in  taking  such  an  oath?  If,  according  to 
"Catholic"  theory,  all  the  baneful  principles  sub- 
sequently denominated  "protestant"  were  the  inven- 
tion of  the  Reformers  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  and 
the  work  of  these  "miscreants"  was  overthrown  in 
the  Seventeenth  Century,  when  Laud,  Cosin,  and 
other  "Catholics"  got  in  their  work,  how  does  it 
happen  that  even  Laud  was  so  "uncatholic"  as  to 
refuse  to  ''tmchurch  these  Protestants?  How  does  it 
happen  that  even  he  asserts  that  he  holds  "the  true 
Protestant  religion  established  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  that  ' '  the  Church  of  England  is  Protestant 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        169 

too*'?  How  was  it  that  so  loyal  a  "Catholic"  as 
Cosin,  after  subverting  the  work  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century  "miscreants"  by  his  own  glorious  Revision 
in  1662,  still  inconsistently  writes:  "In  heart  and 
affection  we  enjoy  constant  union  with  all  the  other 
Churches  on  earth  which  hear  the  title  of  Christian, 
and  profess  the  Catholic  faith  and  religion.  .  .  .  We 
desire  this  to  he  particularly  understood  as  referring 
to  the  Protestant  Churches."  {Regni  Anglice  Re- 
ligion xiv.),  or  how  is  it  that  this  same  "Catholic" 
was  even  styled  ''the  Atlas  of  the  Protestant  Religion, " 
i.  e.,  the  giant  who  held  the  whole  system  of  Protest- 
antism upon  his  shoulders?  We  do  not  expect 
"Catholics"  to  take  our  word  for  all  these  things, 
but  how  will  they  explain  these  words  of  their  own 
apostles,  Laud  and  Cosin, — not  merely  that  they 
themselves  were  Protestants,  but  that  ''the  Church 
of  England  is  Protestant  too''?  If  the  opinion  of 
"Catholics"  concerning  the  position  of  Ecclesia 
Anglicana  is  to  be  accepted  as  more  authoritative 
than  her  own  authorized,  official  utterances,  these 
decisions  of  such  eminent  "Catholics"  as  Laud  and 
Cosin  that  she  is  a  Protestant  Church  ought  to  be 
accepted  as  final.  Again,  if  the  Church  of  England 
be  not  a  Protestant  Church — if  the  tenets  of  Pro- 
testantism be  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  her 
official  doctrines,  and  if  it  be  "heresy"  for  any  of  her 
Bishops  to  have  anything  to  do  with  Protestant 
Churches,  either  to  recognize  them  as  "  Churches"  at 
all,  much  less  to  "communicate"  with  them,  how 
is  it  that  when,  after  the  Revolution,  a  Church  was 


170      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

organized  here  in  America  bearing  the  title  "  The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,''  and  professing  to  hold 
substantially  the  same  doctrines  and  principles  as 
Ecclesia  Anglicana,  that  the  latter,  after  careful 
examination  of  its  Prayer  Book  and  other  formu- 
laries, officially  recognized  this  "Protestant''  Church, 
as  being  substantially  identical  with  herself,  made 
no  objection  to  her  profession  of  Protestantism,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  deliberately  and  with  open  eyes 
bequeathed  her  the  Episcopate  on  this  very  basis,  viz. : 
that  she  was  "  protestant,"  and  expected  to  be  known 
as  Protestant  by  all  the  world,  under  the  official  title 
"the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church"?  Was  not  the 
Church  of  England  herself  guilty  of  an  heretical  act, 
when  she  thus  officially  recognized  a  Protestant 
Church,  and  has  ever  since  that  day  not  only  con- 
tinued to  recognize  her,  but  to  " commtmicate"  with 
her?  Moreover,  we  should  like  to  inquire  paren- 
thetically :  how  was  it  that  before  the  Episcopate  was 
given,  and  while  the  negotiations  for  the  Episcopate 
were  still  pending,  the  Body  here  in  America,  in  all 
its  official  correspondence  with  the  Church  in  Eng- 
land, claimed  to  be  a  "  Church, "  and  in  all  the  official 
replies  of  the  Bishops  in  England,  this  claim  was 
acknowledged?  How  was  it  that  Ecclesia  Anglicana 
in  such  an  important  crisis  forgot  her  own  essential 
principles,  forgot  that  sine  qua  non  of  "Catholic" 
principle  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  very 
bei7ig  of  a  Church  and  that  without  the  Episcopate 
there  could  be  no  Church  here  in  America — nor  even 
a  "Christian  man;  no,  not  so  much  as  in  name"? 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       171 

It  is  useless  to  continue  to  cite  evidence  in  proof  of 
a  proposition,  which  in  reality  needs  no  proof.  Noth- 
ing is  clearer  or  more  self-evident  to  those  who  read 
history,  and  consult  the  official  formularies  of  the 
Church  of  England  than  the  fact  that  she  is  a  Pro- 
testant Church,  and  professes  to  uphold  and  defend 
Protestant  doctrines.  This  being  the  case,  no  better 
proof  of  the  utter  impossibility  for  "Catholics"  to 
represent  her,  or  to  maintain  their  position  as  or- 
thodox clergy  of  this  Church,  can  well  be  found  than 
the  admission  contained  in  the  Bishop  of  Zanzibar's 
own  words:  "If  she  {Ecclesia  Anglicana)  have  need 
of  us  to  catholicize  the  heathen  world  ioT  Christ,  I  am 
at  her  service  now  as  always.  But  if  to  protestantize 
the  world  ...  7  for  my  part  have  no  longer  place 
or  lot  within  her  borders.''^ 

So,  too,  what  is  true  with  regard  to  Zanzibar's 
charge  against  the  Bishops  of  Uganda  and  Mombasa, 
is  equally  true  regarding  his  further  charge  against 
the  Bishop  of  St.  Albans.  How  any  man  can  rea- 
sonably expect  to  substantiate  a  charge  of  "heresy" 
against  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  England  for 
enforcing  conformity  to  the  Art.  XXII.  of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  the  regularly  established  Articles  oj 
Religion  for  the  Church  oj  England,  adopted  officially 
as  the  expression  of  her  doctrinal  position,  and  re- 
quired to  be  subscribed  by  all  the  Clergy  of  said 
Church;  or  how  any  one  can  pretend  to  affirm  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  a  Bishop  of  the  Ecclesia  Anglicana 
to  uphold  and  encourage  the  practice  of  invoking  the 
Saints   when    said    Article    distinctly    affirms    that 


172      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

''Invocation  of  Saints  is  a  fofid  tJiing  vaijily  invented, 
and  grounded  upon  no  warranty  of  Scripture,  hut  rather 
repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God";  or,  finally,  how  any 
one  holding  the  views  of  the  Bishop  of  Zanzibar  on 
this  and  all  the  above  stated  questions  can  fail  to 
perceive  that  what  "heresy"  or  infidelity  to  the 
Church  of  England  there  be  in  any  of  these  matters 
rests  with  him,  and  not  with  the  accused — these,  we 
say,  are  mysteries  inscrutable  which  none  but  a 
"Catholic"  intellect  can  presume  to  fathom.  In  a 
word,  the  whole  position  assumed  by  Zanzibar  is 
but  another  evidence  of  the  extent  to  which  "Catho- 
lic" presumption  has  gone  in  this  Church.  From 
being  universally  condemned  as  heterodox,  it  has 
been  more  and  more  tolerated  until,  finally, 
"Catholics"  have  come,  not  only  to  pretend,  but 
actually  to  believe,  that  they  represent  the  orthodox, 
official  view  of  this  Church  — her  established  Acts  and 
Formidaries  to  the  contrary  jwtwithstanding.  Ay, 
little  by  little  their  presumption  has  grown  until 
to-day,  they  hesitate  not  to  call  these  very  formu- 
laries— these  written,  historic  documents,  established  by 
authority  of  Convocation  and  Parliamejit,  heretical, 
and  the  clergy  who  in  obedience  to  their  oath,  con- 
tinue to  defend  them,  '^heretics,"  and  unfaithful  to 
"the  Truth"  they  have  "vowed  to  hand  on  to 
others."  It  has  come  to  pass  that  a  man  who  has 
solemnly  subscribed  the  Articles  of  a  Church  can 
now  refuse  to  acknowledge  their  authority  altogether, 
and  simultaneously  continue  to  assume  that  he  is  a 
faithful  defender  and  exponent  of  the  doctrines  of 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        173 

said  Church,  while  those  who  continue  to  acknowl- 
edge and  defend  them  are  ''heretics''  and  unjaithjul 
to  their  vows.  It  has  come  to  pass  that  one  who  has 
solemnly  sworn  to  uphold  the  Protestant  doctrines 
of  a  Church  which  has  officially  informed  the  world 
that  she  is  a  Protestant  Church,  can  now,  not  only 
ignore  these  promises  altogether,  and  continue  to 
assume  that  he  is  faithful  to  the  tenets  of  his  Com- 
munion, but  can  openly  charge  his  fellow  Bishops, 
who  remain  faithful  to  their  Protestant  principles,  of 
infidelity  to  their  Church.  He  can  even  demand  in 
the  name  of  Ecclesia  Anglicana  herself,  that  those 
who  maintain  her  oJJiciaL,  Protestant  view  of  the  Epis- 
copate and  of  the  Church  Catholic,  adopted  at  the 
very  outset  of  her  history,  and  repeatedly  set  forth 
by  authority,  shall  be  brought  to  trial  for  their  presump- 
tion, while  he  who  prefers  the  charge  may  boast  that 
he  teaches,  in  the  name  of  Ecclesia  Anglicana,  doc- 
trines absolutely  incompatible  with  those  which  she 
has  set  forth,  viz.:  the  ''Catholic''  as  opposed  to  the 
Protestant  view  of  both  these  matters. 

.We  have  now,  as  we  believe,  thoroughly  demon- 
strated the  utter  falsity  of  the  "Catholic"  position, 
and  would  dismiss  the  subject  here  and  now,  were  it 
not  that  there  is  another  line  of  defence  frequently 
resorted  to  in  palliation  of  such  presumption  which 
must,  in  justice,  be  referred  to.  It  is  commonly 
argued  by  "Catholics"  that  because  Ecclesia  Angli- 
cana professes  to  be  a  part  only  of  a  yet  larger  Church 
— the  Church  Catholic  or  Universal,  and  has  in  the 
Creed  formally  expressed  her  belief  in  the  principles 


174      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  doctrines  of  the  said  Holy  Catholic  Church, 
that  the  teachings  of  this  latter  must  necessarily  take 
precedence  of  her  own  particular  denominational 
tenets.  Hence  her  clergy  are  justified  in  appealing 
to  such  Catholic  doctrine  and  usage  in  entire  inde- 
pendence of  her  national  views,  and  even  in  direct  op- 
position to  them.  The  sophistry  of  such  an  argument 
should  be  manifest.  For  even  assuming  the  premises 
to  be  correct,  as  well  might  you  argue  that  because 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  above  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  you  owe  no 
obedience  to  the  interpretations  of  the  Constitution 
made  by  the  Supreme  Court,  but  each  individual  is 
free  to  act  upon  his  oivn  interpretation  independently 
of,  and  even  in  opposition  to,  the  official  decisions  of 
the  latter.  Or  you  might  argue  that  because  the 
Constitution  of  each  State  professes  to  be,  and  is  sup- 
posed to  be  subservient  to,  and  in  conformity  with, 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  each  individual 
citizen  has  a  right  to  ignore  the  decrees  of  his  State 
Constitution,  whenever  in  his  individual  or  private 
opinion  they  do  not  accord  with  the  General  Constitu- 
tion of  the  land.  That  each  individual  is  free  to 
believe  what  propositions  he  will,  either  in  the 
theological  or  in  the  political  world,  is  one  thing. 
But  that  any  individual,  once  having  adopted  a 
given  ecclesiastical  or  civil  government  as  his  own, 
once  having  subscribed  its  Constitution  and  Laws, 
once  having  become  a  citizen,  and  even  an  officer  in 
such  a  Community,  can  refuse  to  conform  to  the  said 
Constitution  and  Laws  thereof,  can  refuse  to  ac- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        175 

knowledge  that  they  have  any  authority  over  him 
though  he  continues  to  call  himself  a  member  of  such 
an  organization,  a  subject  of  such  a  government,  or 
can  even  presume  to  call  in  question  the  loyalty  of 
those  who  do  conform,  charging  them  senselessly 
with  treason  to  their  Church — all  this  is  too  prepos- 
terous to  merit  serious  consideration.  Yet  this  is 
precisely  the  attitude  assumed  by  the  Bishop  of 
Zanzibar  in  the  present  instance,  as  well  as  that  of 
*' Catholics''  generally,  both  in  this  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  and  in  the  mother  Church  across 
the  seas.  We  wish  here  and  now  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that  we  respect  individual  belief,  individual  con- 
viction in  every  man.  Honest  belief  or  conviction 
as  to  what  is  the  truth  of  any  matter  is  something 
which  a  man  cannot  arbitrarily  fashion  for  himself. 
It  is  not  subject  to  his  will.  It  is  forced  upon  him 
whether  he  will  or  not.  For  whatever  a  man  may 
wish  to  believe,  or  whatever  he  may  try  to  believe, 
or  whatever  he  may  profess  to  believe,  as  an  actual 
matter  of  fact,  he  himself  knows  that  he  does  believe 
and  can  believe  only  that  which  his  own  individual 
reason  and  conscience  compel  him  to  believe.  He 
may  wish  and  pray,  oftentimes,  that  it  were  otherwise, 
but  all  to  no  purpose.  He  must  follow  the  only  guide 
that  God  has  given  him  to  the  best  of  his  ability. 
So,  in  the  same  way,  if  a  man  cannot  arbitrarily 
create  or  fashion  his  own  belief,  it  is  worse  folly  to 
imagine  that  any  other  man  can  fashion  it  for  him, 
or  that  any  self-asserted  infallible  authority  of 
Church  or  State  can  presume  to  decree  what  it  shall 


176      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

be  by  legislation.  Now  the  Chiirch  of  England,  in 
common  with  all  the  Reformed  Churches,  recognized 
this  right  of  the  individual  to  obey  the  dictates  of  his 
own  reason  and  conscience  in  all  these  theological 
questions,  and  has  never  forced  her  official  interpre- 
tations upon  any  one  as  matters  necessary  to  Salvation. 
Had  she  done  so,  she  could  never  have  admitted  the 
possibility  of  salvation  outside  the  ranks  of  her  own 
communion.  This,  however,  is  precisely  what  she 
did  not  do.  In  common  with  all  the  Reformed 
Churches,  she  recognized  the  principle  of  "private 
judgment"  and  the  right  of  any  individual  who  could 
not  conscientiously  accept  her  interpretations  of 
Holy  Scripture  to  leave  her  communion  for  some 
other  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic  that  could  satisfy 
his  wants.  In  short,  nothing  but  the  actual  state- 
ments of  Holy  Scripture  itself  were  to  be  insisted  upon 
as  necessary  articles  of  belief  for  those  who  were 
willing  to  "profess  and  call  themselves  Christians" 
at  all.  This  was  for  the  plain  and  obvious  reason 
that  since  all  that  is  known  of  the  teachings  of  Christ 
has  been  given  in  the  Bible,  no  man  can  profess  to 
believe  the  teachings  of  Christ  without  simultane- 
ously professing  belief  in  the  statements  of  the  Bible. 
While  these  actual  statements  of  the  Bible  were  to  be 
required  of  all  who  called  themselves  Christian  at  all, 
as  fundamental  articles  of  belief,  no  other  teaching  of 
the  Church,  however  plausible  from  the  standpoint 
of  reason  or  commendable  in  practice,  could  demand 
more  than  a  promise  of  consent,  or  conformity  on  the 
part  of  individual  members  of  the  Clergy.     Thus, 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       177 

the  Church  has  ever  recognized  the  just  distinction 
between  voluntary  assent,  consent  or  conjormity  to 
certain  propositions,  and  actual  heliej  in  them. 
WTiile  ever  insisting  with  respect  to  her  Articles  oj 
Religion  that  each  clergyman  shall  "declare  his 
unfeigned  assent  and  consent  unto,  and  approbation 
of,  the  said  Articles"  (Act  of  Uniform.,  13  and  14 
Car.  n.,  c.  14),  she  does  not  go  further  and  demand  a 
confession  of  faith  or  belief  therein,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, distincly  affirms  (Art.  VI.)  that  such  belief 
is  only  to  be  required  in  connection  with  the  plainest 
statements  of  "Holy  Scripture"  itself,  "so  that  what- 
soever is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is 
not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  &e  be- 
lieved as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  thought  requisite 
or  necessary  to  salvation/^  While,  therefore,  the 
Church  does  not  require  that  her  Articles  or  other 
formularies,  which  are  distinctively  her  own  denom- 
inational interpretations  or  explanations  of  certain 
theological  matters,  are  to  go  absolutely  unquestioned 
as  infallible  exposition  of  Truth,  she  does  demand  that 
they  be  recognized  as  authoritative  within  her  own 
communion  as  her  existing  Laws  and  Decisions  in 
respect  of  these  matters,  which  must  be  observed  in 
all  the  practical  life  of  the  Church  as  authorized 
working  rules  or  principles.  The  same  demand  is 
made  by  the  State  respecting  our  Civil  Laws.  No 
law  of  the  land  is  necessarily  infallible,  nor  is  it  re- 
quired of  any  loyal  citizen  that  he  profess  unfeigned 
belief  in  the  correctness  of  each  and  all  of  them. 
Upon  the  contrary,  each  citizen  is  not  only  permitted 


178      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

to  question  the  validity  of  a  given  law,  but  he  is 
further  permitted  to  go  before  the  proper  legislative 
assembly  at  any  time  and  seek  its  repeal.  While  he 
is  not  expected  to  believe  in  its  truth  or  efficacy, 
he  is  expected,  so  long  as  it  is  a  Law  of  the  land,  to 
respect  it  as  such — to  coniform  to  its  demands.  So 
also  no  man  is  required  to  believe  in  the  infallible 
Truth  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  or  any  other  de- 
claration of  the  Church,  as  such.  On  the  contrary, 
he  may  seek  the  repeal  or  revision  of  any  of  these 
authorized  Articles  and  Formularies  before  the  proper 
authorities,  and  as  an  actual  matter  of  fact,  the 
Articles  and  other  Formularies  have  been  repeatedly 
revised  and  altered.  But  while  he  is  not  required  to 
profess  belief  in  them,  he  is  required  to  acknowledge 
their  authority,  as  the  existing  doctrines,  statutes,  and 
laws  of  the  Church,  which  as  such  must  be  obeyed 
and  conformed  to,  until  they  have  been  legitimately 
repealed  or  amended.  "Even  with  respect  to  those 
statements  (of  the  Articles)  which  have  been  viewed 
as  no  more  than  probable  opinions,  or  which  are  in 
truth  only  matters  of  history  and  morals,  the  candi- 
date for  Holy  Orders  must  certify  his  own  willing- 
ness to  shape  his  teaching  by  the  public  standard,  and 
to  yield  his  unwavering  assent  to  the  fitness  of  the  whole 
collection'^  (Hardwick's  Hist.  Art.,  p.  206).  It 
would  be  chaos  in  any  Church  if  such  conformity  and 
respect  to  her  individual  doctrines  or  views  were  not 
required,  and  each  Clergyman  might  elect  for  him- 
self to  teach  and  to  preach  in  her  name  what  he 
individually  conceived  to  be  the  truth  of  any  contro- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        179 

verted  matter.  Yet  this  is  precisely  the  sophistry- 
underlying  the  whole  "Catholic"  position.  Because 
the  Church  of  England  is  but  a  part  of  a  still  larger 
Church,  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  it  does  not  follow 
from  tliis  that  each  individual  clergyman  of  the 
Church  is  to  teach  and  to  preach  in  the  name  of  the 
Church  of  England  {claiming  her  authority)  whatever 
he,  individually,  conceives  to  be  the  true^  original 
doctrine  oj  the  primitive  Catholic  Church,  in  utter 
disregard  of  the  official  interpretations  and  exposi- 
tions of  such  "Catholic  Truth"  which  the  Church 
of  England  herself  has  authorized.  In  short,  even 
accepting  the  hypothesis,  as  ordinarily  stated,  to  be 
correct,  and  that  we  owe  allegiance  to  the  primitive 
teaching  of  the  Undivided  Church  before  all  else, 
yet  who  is  to  determine  authoritatively  what  that  primi- 
tive doctrine  really  was:  the  Church  of  England  as  a  body, 
or  each  individual  clergyman  as  a  man?  Wliile  harp- 
ing upon  the  precedence  of  "Catholic  Doctrine"  and 
practice,  they  forget  that  the  Articles  and  other 
formularies  of  the  Church  are  her  official  interpreta- 
tions and  expositions  of  what  "  Catholic  Doctrines  and 
practices ' '  really  were.  While,  therefore,  it  is  perfectly 
true  that  the  Church  of  England  must  bow  to  what 
was  the  teaching  of  the  Church  at  the  very  beginning, 
it  is  not  for  individual  clergymen  of  the  Church,  but 
rather  for  the  Church  as  a  body,  in  Convocation  as- 
sembled, and  through  official  acts  and  authorized  formu- 
laries, to  determine  authoritatively  what  these  primitive 
doctrines  were.  Now,  it  is  precisely  this  that  the 
Church  of  England  has  done  in  her  Articles,  Prayer 


i8o      WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Book  and  other  formularies,  hence  these,  and  not 
the  speculations  of  individual  "Catholics"  must  be 
accepted  and  respected  by  all  members  of  the  Church 
of  England  as  authoritative  declarations  as  to  what 
true  Catholic  Doctrine  really  is.  We  repeat,  then, 
that  the  declarations  of  individual  clergymen,  calling 
themselves  ''Catholics,"  as  to  what  the  true  doctrines 
of  the  primitive  Church  were,  have  no  authoritywhat- 
ever  in  this  Church.  Their  opinions  as  to  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  Church  Catholic,  its  doctrines, 
usages,  and  practice,  axe  individual  opinions — nothing 
more.  It  is  the  interpretation  and  exposition  of  all 
these  matters  set  forth  in  the  Articles  and  other  formu- 
laries that  are  alone  to  be  accepted  as  authoritative. 
Moreover,  that  the  Reformers  in  framing  these 
formularies  for  the  Church  of  England  had  always 
in  view  the  primitive  teaching  of  the  Church,  and 
claimed  to  be  loyal  to  all  that  was  truly  catholic,  is 
evident  everywhere  in  their  writings.  Bishop  Jewel 
in  his  reply  to  the  Jesuit  Harding  who  charged  that 
they  had  forsaken  the  Catholic  Church,  says: 
' '  Nay,  we  are  returned  to  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ/ ' ' 
Again,  he  tells  us — "We  have  returned  to  the  Apostles 
and  the  ancient  Catholic  Fathers.''  {Works,  iv.,  p. 
12.)  He  further  asserts  in  his  "Apology"  that  the 
faith  of  the  Church  of  England  "is  established  by  the 
words  of  Christ  and  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  and 
by  the  testimonies  of  the  Catholic  Fathers. "  {Works, 
iv.,  p.  15.)  It  is  quite  true  that  his  interpretation  of 
what  constituted  the  essential  "catholicity"  of  any 
given  doctrine,  was  based  upon  principles  foreign  to 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       i8i 

those  employed  by  our  modern  "  Catholics, "  but  this 
docs  not  change  the  fact  that  both  he,  and  his  brother 
reformers  generally,  had  always  the  same  end  in  view, 
viz: — the    discovery    and    establishment    of    Catholic 
Doctrine.     Thus,    unlike    our    "Catholic"    friends, 
they  denied  that  there  was  any  necessary  infalli- 
bility in  a  General  Council  per  se  (Art.  XXL),  and 
maintained  that  only  in  so  far  as  the  decisions  of  such 
Councils  could  be  shown  to  be  in  conformity  with  the 
statements  of  Holy  Scripture,  were  they  to  be  regarded 
as  authoritative.     Even  the  Creeds  were  not  to  be 
accepted    merely    because    authorized   by    General 
Councils,  but  only  because  the  actual  statements 
contained  in  them  could  be  shown  to  have  the  *'most 
certain  warrant  of   Holy   vScripture"    (Art.  VHI.)- 
While,  however,  they  denied  the  infallibility  of  such 
assemblies,  they  attached  great  importance  to  their 
decisions  as  testimony  or  evidence.     Nor  was  it  the 
decrees  of  Councils  only.     All  the  early  Fathers  were 
looked  upon  as  witnesses  to  the  primitive  truth,  and 
their  writings  were  searched  for  statements  regarding 
all   matters   of   controversy.     Thus,   while   nothing 
but  the  plainest  and  most  unequivocal  teachings  of 
Holy   Scripture  were  to  be  regarded  as  infallible, 
doctrines  necessarily  to  be  believed,  all  conclusions 
that  could  be  derived  by  logical  deduction  from  the 
statements  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  could  further  be 
supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  and  the 
General  Councils  of  the  Church,  were  to  be  regarded 
as  Catholic  Doctrine.     On  the  other  hand,  no  doctrine, 
however  supported  by  the  statements  of  the  Fathers 


i82       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  the  declarations  of  General  Councils,  however 
prevalent  either  in  Time  or  Space,  that  could  not 
show  warrant  of  Holy  Writ  was  to  be  looked  upon  as 
either  necessary  or  Catholic.  For,  as  Bishop  Jewel 
again  expresses  it,  "the  Catholic  Church  of  God 
standeth  not  in  multitude  of  persons,  but  in  weight  of 
truth. "  Thus  while  the  Anglican  Reformers  did  not 
hesitate  to  apply  the  Vincentian  formula,  yet  they 
did  so  after  a  rational,  not  a  mechanical  fashion. 
There  was  no  blind,  unreasoning  appeal  to  the  mere 
prevalence  oj  a  doctrine,  ^^ semper,  ubigue,  et  ah  omni- 
bus,^^  the  mere  number  of  witnesses  attesting,  the 
"multitude  of  persons,"  but  rather  to  the  character 
of  their  testimony,  its  "weight  of  truth"  or  "fitness" 
in  view  of  other  circumstances,  its  credibility  in  the 
light  of  actual  statements  of  Holy  Writ,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  historic  position  of  the  witnesses  them- 
selves, etc.  In  short,  it  was  the  sane  appeal  of  every 
Court  of  Law  to-day  to  the  testimony  of  reliable 
witnesses — i.  e.,  not  to  the  mere  number  of  witnesses, 
but  to  the  rational  character  of  the  testimony  ad- 
duced— the  evidence  which  the  logic  oj  time,  and 
space,  and  circumstance  warranted  as  reliable  and 
justifiable.  Moreover  this  appeal  to  "catholicity" 
is  everywhere  apparent  in  their  official  acts,  as  well 
as  in  their  private  writings.  They  retained  the 
Catholic  Creeds  as  the  official  expression  of  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  those 
Creeds  they  openly  professed  their  belief  "^'w  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church. "  In  many  official  acts  they 
referred  approvingly  thereto,  authorizing  particular 


I 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       183 

forms  of  Prayer  therefor  {e.  g.,  "  Be  merciful,  O  Father 
of  all  Mercies,  to  Thy  Church  Universal  dispersed 
throughout  the  whole  world,"  etc.,  1572).  Finally, 
that  the  "Catholic"  ( ?)  Revisers  of  1662  most  heartily 
approved  the  position  of  the  Reformers  cs  thoroughly 
Catholic,  is  evidenced  by  their  own  official  declaration 
that  although  in  their  own  work  they  had  been  guided 
b}''  a  fixed  determination  to  preserve  inviolate  every 
doctrine  and  practice  "0/  the  whole  Catholick  Church 
of  Christ,''  yet  they  had  discovered  nothing  in  the 
Prayer  Book,  Articles,  etc.,  of  the  Reformers  that 
necessitated  alterations  in  a  matter  of  essential 
truth,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  did  "profess 
it  to  the  world,  that  the  Book,  as  it  stood  before 
established  by  Law,  did  (doth)  not  contain  in  it 
anything  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  or  to  sound 
doctrine,"  etc.  It  is  the  greatest  mistake  in  the  world 
therefore  to  imagine  that  the  Reformers  were  not 
bent  upon  the  attainment  of  Catholic  Truth.  The 
man  who  acts  upon  that  assumption  has  not  learned 
the  A,  B,  C,  of  the  Reformation.  The  whole  mean- 
ing of  the  Reformation  was  a  return  to  the  primitive, 
unadulterated  teaching  of  the  early  Church.  To 
assert  this  primitive  Catholic  Faith,  however,  men 
were  necessarily  compelled  to  protest  against  all  the 
misrepresentations  of  it  that  were  current  in  their 
age  and  time,  against  all  the  false  doctrines  that  had 
been  added  over  and  above  to  the  original  kernel  of 
Divine  Truth.  They  were  compelled  to  protest 
against  these  errors  in  order  that  they  might  bring 
out  clearly  or  emphasize  the  original  Truth.     They 


1 84   WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

were  Protestant,  therefore,  only  that  they  might  be 
truly  Catholic.  It  is  a  great  mistake,  therefore,  to 
think  that  Catholicism  is  an  antonym  for  Protestant- 
ism. That  is  a  late  invention,  absolutely  unknown 
to  the  Reformers.  With  them  the  antonym  of 
Protestantism  was  not  Catholicism,  but  Papism. 
They  were  protesting  not  against  Catholic,  but  Papal 
doctrine,  that  doctrine  which,  though  claiming  to  be 
the  primitive,  Catholic  truth,  was,  in  reality,  Cath- 
olicism falsely  so-called.  Why  our  modern  "Cath- 
olic "  friends  cannot  reconcile  their  doctrine  with  that 
of  the  Reformers,  is  not  that  the  Reformers  were  any 
less  desirous  of  upholding  and  maintaining  Catholic 
Truth  than  they,  but  that  their  conception  of  what 
was  the  primitive  Catholic  Faith,  and  the  conception 
entertained  by  the  Reformers,  are  diametrically 
opposite.  What  our  modem  "Catholics"  term 
Catholic  doctrine,  an  English  Reformer  would  have 
characterized  as  Papist  doctrine.  It  is  not  true, 
therefore,  that  the  English  Reformers  were  indifferent 
to  Catholic  Truth,  for  their  whole  object  was  to  dis- 
cover it  and  establish  it  as  the  official  doctrine  of  their 
Church.  Only  is  it  true,  then,  that  what  they 
claimed  to  be  the  true  teaching  of  the  primitive 
Catholic  Church,  and  what  the  modern  "Catholics." 
claim,  are  totally  different  things.  This  fact,  we 
not  only  cheerfully  acknowledge,  but  it  is  our  whole 
purpose  to  emphasize  it.  Nothing  can  be  found  that 
is  more  irreconcilable  than  the  Anglican  and  "Cath- 
olic" conceptions  of  true  Catholic  Doctrine.  "Cath- 
olics" hold  that  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  as  an 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        185 

outward  and  visible  organization,  consists  only  of 
those  bodies  possessing  the  Historic  Episcopate,  and 
exclude  all  non-episcopal  bodies  therefrom.  The 
Anglican  Reformers  held  that  all  organized  bodies 
of  Christians  that  confessed  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  Faith,  whether  Episcopal  or  Non- 
Episcopal  in  government,  were  branches  of  the  Visible 
Catholic  Church,  and  specifically  recognized  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  and  other  non- 
episcopal  bodies  on  the  continent  hy  name  as  parts 
of  said  Catholic  Church  (Canon,  55).  "Catholics" 
hold  that  there  are  three  Orders  in  the  technical  sense 
of  that  word,  that  have  the  warrant  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  are  therefore  "necessary'^  in  the  Church. 
The  Anglican  Reformers  maintained  even  before  the 
Reformation  proper  had  been  effected,  i.  e.  in  Henry 
Vni.'s  reign  (see  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man; 
Necessary  Doc.  and  Enid.,  etc.),  that  there  were  but 
two  such  Orders,  viz. :  (i)  Presbyters  (sometimes  called 
Bishops)  and  (2)  Deacons  or  Ministers.  They  con- 
tinued to  hold  this  view  throughout  the  Reformation 
period  (see  Cranmer's  Catechism,  and  numberless 
statements  in  the  works  of  the  Reformers  generally). 
They  reiterated  the  doctrine  with  emphasis  in  1662, 
affirming  in  the  Rubrics  to  the  Ordinal  that  both  the 
Presbyter  ate  and  the  Diaconate  were  '^necessary  .  .  . 
in  the  Church  of  Christ,"  but  significantly  refraining 
from  asserting  the  same  of  the  Episcopate.  "Catho- 
lics" hold  that  there  is  no  valid  Ministry  save  that 
which  has  been  derived  through  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate.   The  Anglican  Reformers  maintained  that  every 


i86       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Ministry  was  valid  in  the  sight  of  God  wherein  the 
persons  so  ministering  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments 
had  been  "chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men 
who  had  (have)  public  authority  given  unto  them  in 
the  Congregation,  to  call  and  send  Ministers  into  the 
Lord's  vineyard"  (Art.  XXIH.).  They  further  left 
unequivocal  testimony  of  the  meaning  of  these  words 
in  numberless  official  acts  of  recognition  of  such  non- 
episcopal  Ministries  {e.  g.  Grindal's  License  to  John 
Morrison,  Judgment  of  Bancroft  in  case  of  Scottish 
Presbyters,  1610,  together  with  the  practice  of  the 
Church  for  over  one  hundred  years  of  admitting  such 
Ministers  to  officiate  in  Church  of  England  without 
reordination).  "Catholics"  hold  that  the  Sacra- 
ments administered  by  any  but  an  episcopally  or- 
dained clergy  are  invalid.  The  Anglican  Reformers 
taught  exactly  the  reverse  (see  Patent  of  Edward 
VL,  Grindal's  License  to  John  Morrison,  etc.  Also 
necessarily  implied  in  their  official  recognition  of  non- 
episcopal  bodies  as  true  ^^  Churches"  and  of  their 
Ministries  as  valid).  "Catholics"  maintain  that  the 
Rites  of  Confirmation,  Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony, 
and  Extreme  Unction  are  "Sacraments of  the  Gospel" 
as  necessarily  to  be  observed  as  the  Sacraments  of 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Anglican 
Reformers  distinctly  denied  that  the  term  "Sacra- 
ment" could  be  applied  to  the  former  in  the  same 
technical  sense  (see  Art.  XXV.).  "Catholics"  be- 
lieve in  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  The  Anglican 
Reformers  declared  that  such  theories  or  interpreta- 
tions of  the  Holy  Communion  "were  blasphemous 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        187 

fables,  and  dangerous  deceits"  (Art.  XXXI.). 
"Catholics"  maintain  the  objective  presence  of  the 
Body  of  Christ  in  the  consecrated  elements,  some  in 
accordance  with  the  Roman  theory  of  Transub- 
stantiation,  others  after  a  different  manner,  but  both 
alike  maintaining  the  local  or  spatial  presence  of 
the  Divine  Body  in  the  elements.  The  Anglican 
Reformers  emphatically  denied  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation  and  all  theories  of  a  local  presence 
(Art.  XXVni.).  "Catholics,"  assuming  that  the 
Divine  Presence  is  local  in  the  elements,  deduce  there- 
from the  doctrine  that  the  consecrated  elements  may 
be  upheld  to  the  gaze  of  the  Congregation  as  the  vis- 
ible Christ  to  be  bowed  down  to,  and  adored.  Whose 
Body  can  be  carried  about,  and  reserved.  The 
Anglican  Reformers  on  the  contrary,  denying  as  they 
did  the  local  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  as 
logically  denied  in  turn  that  it  was  ever  by  Christ's 
ordinance  intended  to  be  "reserved,  carried  about, 
lifted  up,  or  worshipped"  (Art.  XXVHL).  "Cath- 
olics" believe  in  the  practice  of  invoking  the  Saints. 
The  Anglican  Reformers  declared  that  "Invocation 
of  Saints,  is  a  fond  thing,  vainly  invented,  and 
grounded  upon  no  warranty  of  Scripture,  but  rather 
repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God"  (Art.  XXII.). 
"Catholics"  affirm  that  the  decrees  of  the  General 
or  Ecumenical  Councils  of  the  Church  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  infallible.  The  Anglican  Reformers  did 
not  hesitate  to  assert  that  "forasmuch  as  they  be  an 
assembly  of  men,  whereof  all  be  not  governed  with  the 
Spirit  and  Word  of  God,  they  may  err,  and  sometimes 


i88       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

have  erred,  even  in  things  pertaining  unto  God. 
Wherefore  things  ordained  by  them  as  necessary  to 
salvation  have  neither  strength  nor  authority,  unless 
it  may  be  declared  that  they  be  taken  out  of  Holy 
Scripture"  (Art.  XXI.).  So  we  might  continue 
the  contrast  indefinitely.  Nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that  "Catholic"  doctrines,  not  only  do  not 
represent,  but  are  in  irreconcilable  opposition  to, 
the  official  doctrines  of  this  Church.  Hence  if  heresy 
there  be,  it  must  be  imputed  to  those  who  are  seeking 
to  introduce  in  the  name  of  Catholic  Truth  doctrines 
and  practices  wholly  unknown  to  the  Anglican 
Reformers  as  Catholic — not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the 
Articles  or  other  Formularies  which  they  established 
as  official  in  this  Church,  rather  than  to  those  whose 
only  crime  appears  to  be  that  they  are  standing  loy- 
ally by  these  established  doctrines,  fearlessly  striving 
to  keep  alive  those  beacon-fires  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation  "which  by  God's  Grace  shall  never  be 
extinguished." 

But  finally,  not  only  do  we  emphatically  deny  that 
the  doctrines  peculiar  to  "Catholics"  have  any 
authority  whatever  within  this  Church,  but  we  fur- 
ther as  emphatically  deny  again  that  the  doctrines 
which  are  official  therein,  the  doctrines  framed  by 
the  English  Reformers  and  incorporated  into  the 
existing  articles  and  other  formularies  of  the  Church, 
are  in  any  sense  of  the  word  the  work  of  men  who 
were  either  ignorant  of,  or  antagonistic  to,  the  Faith 
and  practice  of  the  Primitive  Church.  As  we  have 
already  taken  the  pains  to  show,  he  knows  little  of  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       189 

works  of  the  English  Reformers  who  labours  under 
the  impression  that  they  did  not  appeal  to  antiquity 
and  to  primitive,  Catholic  doctrine  in  all  the  reforms 
which  they  instituted.  On  the  contrary,  their  entire 
work  was  based  upon  this  very  principle.  In  every 
change  which  they  inaugurated,  whether  in  the  word- 
ing of  the  Liturgy,  the  conception  of  the  Priestly 
office,  the  authority  of  the  Episcopate,  the  essential 
nature  of  the  Church,  or  in  the  minor  alterations  of 
particular  rites  and  ceremonies,  they  appealed,  in 
justification  of  their  acts,  to  the  ''Catholic  assent  of 
Antiquity,''  the  ''Catholic  usages  oj  primitive  times,'' 
"the  Usages  of  the  Primitive  Church,"  etc.  (Walcott, 
Canons  Eccles.  Ch.  Eng.,  p.  xx).  We  read  that  the 
King  ordered  that  "the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  certain  of  the  most  learned  and  discreet  Bishops, 
and  other  learned  men  of  this  realm,  having  as  well 
eye  and  respect  to  the  most  sincere  and  pure  Christian 
religion,  taught  by  the  Scripture  as  to  the  Usages  of 
the  Primitive  Church  should  draw  and  make  one 
convenient  and  meet  order,  rite,  fashion,"  etc. 
(Act  of  Unif.,  1548,  2,  3,  Edw.  VI.).  And  again,  later 
on,  at  the  Savoy  Conference,  the  same  principle 
was  as  consistently  maintained,  the  Commissioners 
being  directed ' '  to  advise  upon  and  review  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  comparing  the  same  with  the  most 
ancient  Liturgies,  which  have  been  used  in  the  Church 
in  the  primitive  and  purest  times"  (Cardw.  Conf., 
258).  In  short,  the  whole  point  of  Anglican  Reforma- 
tion was  that  the  Church  at  that  time  had  so  far 
departed  from  ancient  Catholic  Doctrine  and  Practice, 


190       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

that  primitive  truth  had  become  so  obscure  through 
numberless  innovations,  that  it  was  imperatively 
necessary  to  remodel  the  entire  ecclesiastical  struc- 
ture. In  a  word,  the  Anglican  Reformers  were  just 
as  insistent  upon  Catholicity  as  the  most  ardent  ad- 
herent of  the  so-called  "Catholic"  party  to-day. 
The  difference  is  not  in  the  end  which  each  had  in  view, 
but  in  the  particular  conception  which  each  enter- 
tained of  it.  The  Anglican  Reformer  was  no  less 
intent  upon  restoring  ancient  CathoHc  Truth  than 
Zanzibar,  but  what  the  latter  now  regards  as  Catholic, 
he  regarded  as  simple,  unadulterated  popery.  What 
Zanzibar  now  extols  as  the  true  doctrine  of  the  primi- 
tive, undivided  Church,  he  long  ago  repudiated  as  a 
gross  misrepresentation  thereof,  the  invention  of  a 
later  and  most  corrupt  period.  That  Zanzibar  has 
the  right  to  differ  with  the  Anglican  Reformers  as 
to  the  correctness  of  these  conclusions,  no  one,  for  one 
moment,  will  question.  But  that  he  has  a  right, 
while  holding  these  opinions,  to  enter  the  Ministry 
of  that  Church  which  they  remodelled,  subscribe  to 
the  doctrines  which  they  framed,  and  the  conception 
of  the  Church  and  Ministry  which  they  established, 
and  then  to  have  the  impertinence  to  assert,  while 
continuing  a  Bishop  and  representative  of  that  Church, 
that  he  is  not  bound  by  its  official  doctrines  and  utter- 
ances, that  his  individual  interpretations  of  what  is 
true  Catholic  truth  and  practice,  and  not  thoee  inter- 
pretations established  by  Law  are  alone  official 
and  AUTHORITATIVE,  that  whosoever  presumes  to 
differ  with  him,  is  disloyal  to  the  Church  he  professes 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        191 

to  represent,  traitor  to  the  vows  which  he  has  as- 
sumed therein,  and  should  be  summarily  brought  to 
trial  for  "Heresy"  (!!),  this  is  simply  the  insanity 
of  arrogance.  It  appears,  indeed,  incredible  that 
such  a  state  of  things  could  actually  exist  within  the 
Church,  and  yet  the  fact  is  too  patent  to  be  denied. 
In  every  single  point,  the  doctrines  and  practices 
peculiar  to  "Catholics"  are  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
official  doctrines  and  practices  of  that  very  branch 
of  the  Universal  Church  they  profess  to  represent. 
In  every  single  instance  they  tacitly  assume  that  their 
own  unauthorized  opinions  should  take  precedence 
over  those  of  the  Reformers,  despite  the  plain,  in- 
controvertible fact  that  the  views  of  the  Reformers 
are  the  established  doctrines  of  the  Church. 


VII 
DEVELOPMENT   IN   THEOLOGY 


193 


VII 

DEVELOPMENT   IN   THEOLOGY 

THE  writer  of  these  pages  is  quite  aware  that 
there  are  some  churchmen  who  while  thor- 
oughly sympathetic  with  the  general  aim  and 
purpose  of  this  work,  will  nevertheless  criticize  him 
for  basing  his  argument  so  strongly  upon  the  position 
assumed  by  the  Anglican  Reformers,  and  not  refut- 
ing the  "Catholic"  theory  by  direct  appeal  to  the  re- 
sults of  modem  scholarship  which  are  in  themselves 
amply  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  mediecvalism 
of  that  party.  To  all  such  criticism  he  replies  by 
saying  that  the  object  of  this  essay  was  not  to  dis- 
cuss the  abstract  problems  relating  to  the  origin  of 
the  present  day  dogmas  and  institutions  of  the  Chris- 
tian Faith,  nor  would  the  portrayal  of  the  actual 
results  of  such  research,  however  damaging  to  the 
"Catholic"  hypothesis,  be  of  any  practical  benefit  in 
the  present  issue  if  considered  in  and  by  themselves 
alone,  and  not  in  relation  to  the  views  of  the  Anglican 
Reformers.  In  short,  we  are  face  to  face  with  a  purely 
practical  problem,  a  proposed  act  of  legislation  which 
threatens  to  overthrow  the  existing  official  position 
of  this  Church.     We  are  not  primarily  concerned 

195 


196       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

with  the  general  question  as  to  whether  the  official 
position  of  this  Church  can  be  regarded  as  correct  or 
incorrect,  in  the  light  of  recent  criticism,  but  only 
with  the  particular  question  here  and  now  confronting 
us,  as  to  whether  a  certain  proposed  act  of  legislation 
can  be  carried  out  without  abandoning  the  foundation 
principles  upon  which  this  Church  has  been  established. 
It  is  a  question  of  Constitutional  Law,  not  of  general 
scientific  or  theological  fact.  We  have  merely  set  out 
to  prove  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  any  one 
to  assume  that  the  theological  position  taken  by  the 
Anglican  Reformers  and  incorporated  into  the  Ar- 
ticles and  other  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England 
is  not  the  present  official  position  of  that  communion  as 
well  as  of  this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  that 
the  doctrinal  position  of  the  "Catholic"  party  is 
not  absolutely  incompatible  therewith,  and  that  the 
present  proposition  to  change  the  name  of  this 
Church  to  The  American  Catholic  Church  does  not 
necessarily  mean  the  entire  abandonment  of  the  official 
and  historic  position  of  this  Church.  Having  accom- 
plished this  task,  we  feel  that  our  work  is  ended  and 
all  essentials  of  our  argument  complete.  But  while 
we  have  proved  our  case,  so  far  as  the  real  issue  now 
before  the  Church  is  concerned,  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  make  a  few  remarks,  in  conclusion,  in  regard  to  the 
general  position  occupied  by  the  Anglican  Reformers 
in  the  history  of  Christian  Theology.  There  need 
be  no  fear  in  the  minds  of  any  that  the  position  of  the 
Anglican  Reformers  can  ever  be  logically  regarded  as 
obsolete.     That  they  were  in  any  sense  infallible,  or 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS        197 

that  their  theological  conclusions  must  be  regarded 
by  us  as  final  it  would  be  folly  to  assume,  but  that 
they  do  represent  a  stage,  a  most  important  stage, 
in  the  true,  normal  development  of  theological  doc- 
trine can  never  be  forgotten  or  ignored  without  simul- 
taneously denying  our  own  doctrinal  continuity  with 
the  primitive  Apostolic  Church.  This,  we  may  add, 
is  the  only  Succession  really  necessary  to  render  any 
Church  a  true,  historic  branch  of  the  original  Cath- 
olic Church.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  take  advantage 
of  this  occasion,  therefore,  to  say  here,  incidentally, 
that  the  results  obtained  by  certain  IModernists  of 
the  present  day  in  applying  the  scientific  theory  of 
Development  in  the  domain  of  Theology,  are  as 
foreign  to  the  idea  or  ^'logos''  of  the  original  germ  of 
Christian  Revelation  as  are  the  corresponding  re- 
sults obtained  by  "Catholics"  and  Roman  theolo- 
gians. In  truth,  it  is  a  most  significant  fact,  and  one 
most  comforting  and  reassuring  to  all  members  of 
the  Anglican  Communion,  that  it  can  be  shown  most 
conclusively  that  the  truest,  sanest,  and  most  normal 
development  of  the  original  germs  of  Revelation  has 
undoubtedly  taken  place  through  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion, and  that  while  the  position  assumed  by  the 
Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England  was  necessarily 
incomplete,  Sind  Jar  from  infallible,  it  was  nevertheless 
a  normal  stage  in  the  history  of  theological  develop- 
ment, which  can  never  be  forgotten  or  eliminated 
without  simultaneously  annihilating  our  historic,  doc- 
trinal continuity  with  the  Church  of  the  Apostolic 
Age.       The  truth  is  that  many  of  those  who  are 


198       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

loudest  in  demanding  the  recognition  of  the  Law  of 
Development  in  Theology,  are  among  the  least  ac- 
quainted with  the  Scientific  principles  underlying 
this  very  theory.  Continuity  with  the  past  is  as 
essential  in  the  development  of  theology  as  it  is  in 
the  development  of  law,  and  in  each  case  such  con- 
tinuity must  be  rational.  The  individuality  of  any 
institution  consists  in  the  character  of  its  principles 
and  ideals.  Churches,  like  Governments  depend  for 
their  historic  continuity  not  upon  an  unbroken  phy- 
sical line  of  persons,  but  upon  an  unbroken  spiritual 
development  of  essential  principles  and  ideals.  We  say 
essential  principles  and  ideals.  We  admit  that  many 
features  of  a  rational  system  more  or  less  important 
may  be  omitted  from  time  to  time  without  destroy- 
ing its  essential  continuity.  Such  doctrines,  tenets, 
or  principles  are  necessary  only  to  the  well-homg  or 
perfection  of  such  a  system,  its  full,  expression  or 
complete  development,  rather  than  to  its  actual 
being  or  continuity  as  a  system.  To  the  extent  to 
which  any  system  fails  to  preserve  or  to  develop 
such  important  features,  which  are  in  logical  con- 
formity with  its  essential  Idea  or  ^' logos'^  to  that  extent 
it  fails  of  being  a  true,  normal,  or  healthy  development. 
It  is  still  a  development,  however.  Its  essential  idea 
has  been  still  preserved.  As  a  consequence,  its 
actual  being  or  continued,  unbroken  existence  has 
been  maintained,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  dwarfed  or 
arrested  development.  It  has  not  fully  expressed  or 
manifested  all  its  potentials.  Nay,  we  may  even 
go  further.     It  is  possible  for  a  given  system  while 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       199 

preserving  all  that  is  really  essential  to  its  mere  being 
or  existence  so  to  develop  one  or  more  of  its  potentials, 
and  simultaneously  suppress  the  development  of 
others,  as  to  produce  a  caricature  rather  than  a  normal 
expression  of  the  essential  Idea.  Such  developments 
are  abnormal  products,  monstrosities.  Now  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  for  us  to  remember  these 
things  whenever  we  are  asked  to  accept  such  systems 
as  Romanism,  Tractarianism,  or  even  certain  con- 
clusions of  Modernism,  hearing  no  resemblance  ivhat- 
ever  to  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament  or  of  the 
Apostolic  Age  on  the  plea  that  they  are"  developments'' 
from  this  primitive  deposit  of  Christian  Faith. 
What  we  have  to  remember  is  that  development  is 
not  simply  a  continuous  adjustment  to  environing 
conditions  with  consequent  growth  along  some  one  or 
more  particular  lines,  but  true  development  is  con- 
tinuous adjustment  to  environment  with  simulta- 
neous adherence  to  type,  and  consequent  proportional 
growth  in  all  directions  rendered  possible  by  the 
potentials  of  the  germ.  That  is  to  say,  the  single 
drop  of  protoplasm  from  which  all  organisms  arise, 
does  not  develop  merely  by  meeting  the  demands  of 
its  environment  continuously  in  just  any  one  or  more 
directions,  regardless  of  the  type  to  which  it  belongs. 
If  it  does  so  develop,  the  resulting  product  is  a  mon- 
strosity, and  not  a  normally  developed  organism.  No 
matter  what  the  demands  of  the  environment  may  be, 
no  matter  how  continuously  it  may  meet  these  de- 
mands, and  grow  accordingly,  such  growth  is  not  a 
healthy  or  normal  development,  unless  it  be  simul- 


200       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

taneously  true  to  the  pattern,  type,  or  ''logos''  of  the 
original  germ.  Mere  growth,  therefore,  by  constant 
incorporation  of  new  material  from  without,  even 
though  it  can  boast  (as  all  growth  can)  of  continuity 
with  the  past,  is  neither  normal  nor  healthy  growth, 
unless  the  new  materials  so  incorporated  from  with- 
out be  distributed  or  arranged  in  accordance  with 
the  "logos"  of  the  type,  and  unless  the  boasted  con- 
tinuity with  the  past  can  be  shown  to  be  logical 
continuity.  Now  this  somewhat  prolix,  but  necessary 
statement  of  the  true,  scientific  Law  of  Development, 
applies  most  significantly  in  the  present  matter. 
The  present  system  of  Roman  theology,  which  despite 
its  widely  different  aspect  from  the  theology  of  the 
Apostolic  Age,  Newman  attempted  to  justify  as  a 
necessary  growth  or  ''development  therefrom,  is  by 
no  means  a  normal  growth  or  development.  We  do 
not  question  the  fact  that  it  is  a  development  from 
this  primitive  germ.  So  is  every  monstrosity,  how- 
ever hideous  its  deformity,  a  development  from  a 
primitive  germ.  So  also  like  every  other  abnormal 
product,  it  unquestionably  possesses  continuity  with 
the  past,  and  can  undoubtedly  lay  claim  to  growth. 
Like  the  physical  abnormality  that  has  increased  in 
bulk  from  a  single  cell  to  a  multicellular  body,  by 
the  constant  absorpt'on  of  new  material  from  without, 
it  too  has  grown  through  incorporation  of  new  mater- 
ial from  the  changing  environment  of  ages.  It  is 
not  that  it  has  not  grown,  and  grown  continuously 
from  the  primitive  germ  of  Christian  Revelation. 
The  only  trouble  is  that  its  growth,  like  the  growth 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       201 

of  the  physical  abnormaHty,  has  not  been  a  rational 
one.  It  has  not  been  in  conjormity  to  type.  It  has, 
indeed,  enormously  developed  along  certain  lines,  but 
it  has  equally  failed  to  develop  along  others,  while 
certain  organs  or  members  have  developed  extra- 
ordinarily, they  have  done  so  at  the  expense  of  others, 
while  some  have  hypertrophied,  others  have  corre- 
spondently  atrophied.  While,  therefore,  the  poten- 
tials of  the  original  germ  may  each  be  represented  by 
some  organ  or  member,  yet  each  such  member  or 
organ  is  (by  hypertrophy  or  atrophy)  a  caricature 
of  the  original  idea  to  be  embodied,  and  the  resulting 
relations  of  these  parts  inter  se,  so  far  from  being  a 
faithful  expression  of  the  original  "logos,"  is  but 
a  deformed  misrepresentation.  The  whole  product 
is  a  7nalJormation — not  a  typical  development.  To  be 
a  true  development  each  potential  of  the  original 
germ  must  be  represented,  and  represented  in  its 
true  relation  to  all  the  rest — i.  e.,  in  the  relation  pre- 
scribed hy  the  "logos"  of  the  type.  Moreover,  while 
it  is  true  that  in  a  biological  development  the  "logos" 
of  the  germ  is  never  directly  revealed,  but  only 
becomes  manifest  in  the  course  of  time,  and  as  a 
consequence  of  development  itself,  it  is  noteworthy 
that  this  is  not  the  case,  or  only  partially  the  case, 
in  regard  to  a  system  of  thought  in  which  the  germ  of 
the  development  is  a  written  constitution  or  a  formal 
revelation  of  foundation  principles,  such  as  the  Canon 
of  Holy  Scripture  is  assumed  to  be  for  the  system  of 
thought  known  as  Christianity.  It  is  quite  true, 
again,  that  all  the  consequences  logically  to  be  devel- 


202       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

oped  out  of  a  given  Constitution,  are  not  to  be  antici- 
pated, and  reveal  themselves  only  in  the  process  of 
time,  under  different  environing  conditions.  In 
this  sense,  what  are  called  new  developments  arise: 
doctrines  and  practices  not  to  be  found  actually  pre- 
scribed in  the  original  charter,  but  deducible  there- 
from either  as  logical  possibilities  or  necessities — i.  c, 
corollaries.  But  the  fundamental  principles  are 
always  revealed  in  the  Constitution,  and  any  alleged 
development  therefrom,  whether  actual  or  hypo- 
thetical, can  be  immediately  compared  with  these 
fundamental  principles  (the  "logos"  of  the  germ) 
and  its  character  as  a  normal  or  abnormal  product 
immediately  determined.  Now  it  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  while  Newman  himself  was  by  no  means 
ignorant  of  this  difference  between  normal  and 
"corrupt"  development,  and  even  emphasized  the 
necessity  of  every  development  remaining  true  to  its 
fundamental  or  typical  "Idea,"  yet  he  has  no  sooner 
enunciated  his  principle  than  he  proceeds  to  ignore 
it,  and  in  the  actual  application  of  his  theory  mis- 
takes an  historic  association  of  ideas,  leading,  in 
unbroken  continuity  from  some  statement  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  practice  of  Apostolic  times,  to  some  corre- 
sponding doctrine  or  practice  of  the  mediaeval 
Church,  for  a  normal  or  logical  development,  when  in 
truth  its  historic  continuity  with  the  primitive  de- 
posit of  Christian  Faith  and  practice  argues  nothing 
more  than  the  like  continuity  of  every  monstrosity 
with  its  primitive  ovum,  and  its  so-called  growth  but 
the  hypertrophy  of  an  abnormal  development.     That 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       203 

there  may  be  an  actual  historic  cojitinuity  between  the 
reverence  of  the  Apostles  for  IMary,  and  the  subse- 
quent Worship  of  the  Virgin  centuries  after,  is  al- 
together probable.  That  such  hyperdulia  can  be 
regarded  as  a  normal  and  logical  development  from 
this  primitive  respect,  and  from  her  position  as  re- 
vealed by  Holy  Scripture,  that  it  can  be  shown  to  be 
a  practice  thoroughly  consonant  with  the  teachings 
of  Christ,  and  in  harmony  with  the  "logos''  of  Scrip- 
tural Revelation,  is  simply  absurd.  The  very  word, 
" hyperdulicL,"  even  by  its  etymology  evidences  the 
fact  that  the  practice  is  iii  excess  of  such  normal 
"diilia" —  is,  in  fact,  the  product  of  hyper-ivophy. 
The  further  fact  that  such  "latria"  (as  distinguished 
from  mere  "dulia")  is  flat  contradiction  of  the  teach- 
ings of  Holy  Scripture  in  regard  to  Christ  as  the  sole 
Mediator,  the  Worship  due  to  God  alone,  etc.,  further 
shows  that  it  is  not  conformable  to  the  ''logos"  of 
Divine  Revelation  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 
Hence  the  system  which  incorporates  this  dogma  and 
practice  is  not  a  true  or  typical  development,  but  an 
altogether  abnormal  product.  Now  it  is  a  further 
very  significant  fact  that  while  the  Anglican  Re- 
formers knew  nothing  of  any  theory  of  development, 
they  nevertheless  never  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  no 
doctrinal  tenet  or  ecclesiastical  practice  could  be 
justified  save  as  it  was  shown  to  be  in  logical  har- 
mony with  the  teachings  of  Holy  Writ.  Nothing 
could  be  demanded  as  really  necessary  which  was  not 
actually  commanded  in  Holy  Scripture  itsetf,  or 
could  be  demonstrated  as  a  necessary  conclusion  or 


204       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

corollary  therefrom.  This  position  is,  in  substance, 
identical  with  that  assumed  by  the  evolutionist  in 
the  doctrine  of  conformity  to  type.  The  result  was 
that,  in  spite  of  his  ignorance  of  the  refinements  of 
later  day  theories  of  Development,  the  Anglican 
Reformer  was  never  guilty  of  the  blunders  of  Trac- 
tarianism.  He  doubtless  made  mistakes,  like  every 
other  normal  human  being.  The  theological  system 
which  he  reared,  like  that  which  characterizes  every 
other  branch  of  the  Catholic  Chiirch,  was  far  from 
being  perfect  or  infallible  in  all  its  details,  but  true 
as  all  this  is,  after  all  is  said  and  done,  it  remains 
the  purest  development,  the  truest  to  the  Divine 
Type  revealed  in  Holy  Scripture  that  the  history 
of  the  Church  has  known.  Whatever  the  limitations 
of  his  vision,  his  eyes  were  clear  enough  to  see  that 
the  Romanism  of  his  day  was  very  far  removed  from 
being  a  true  or  normal  expression  of  the  primitive 
"logos"  of  revealed  truth.  Though,  as  we  have  said, 
unacquainted  with  any  theory  of  Development,  his 
own  theology  was  the  purest  and  sanest,  because 
every  conclusion  was  tested  by,  and  compared  with, 
the  statements  contained  in  the  original  charter  of 
the  Christian  Faith,  the  only  authorized  statement 
of  the  acts  and  utterances  of  the  Saviour  which  the 
Christian  world  has  ever  recognized,  the  only  official 
embodiment  of  Divine  Revelation,  hence  the  only 
Constitution  of  the  Church,  which,  in  itself  un- 
alterable, must  determine  the  bounds  and  limitations 
of  all  the  legislative,  judicial  and  executive  functions 
of  the  same. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       205 

Thus  the  English  Reformers  were  enabled  to  es- 
cape the  errors  of  Romanism  and  the  later  mistakes 
of  the  Tractarians.  They  were  never  beguiled  into 
believing  that  a  mere  association  of  ideas  necessarily- 
involved  tJie  logical  development  of  the  one  out  of  the 
other,  or  that  any  unbroken  catena  of  suggestion, 
dating  historically  from  the  Apostolic  Age  to  the 
Council  of  Trent,  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary 
and  normal  development  of  doctrine  carried  ont  under 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  denied,  as 
we  have  seen,  that  the  mere  reverence  and  respect  of 
the  Apostles  for  Mary,  involved  the  worship  ac- 
corded her  by  the  Roman  Church,  as  a  necessary 
doctrinal  development,  divinely  ordained.  They 
denied  that  the  normal  commemoration  of  the 
heroes  and  martyrs  of  the  Early  Church  involved  the 
abnormal  doctrine  of  the  Invocation  of  Saints. 
They  denied  that  the  primitive  belief  that  in  the 
reception  of  the  Lord's  Supper  the  worshipper, 
through  faith,  received  the  undying  Life  of  the  In- 
visible Christ  in  his  soul  necessarily  carried  with  it 
the  doctrine  of  the  transubstantiation  of  the  physical 
elements,  and  the  consequent  assumption  that  they 
became  the  sejtsible  manifestation  of  the  Living 
Christ,  to  be  bowed  down  to  and  adored.  They 
denied  that  any  allusion  to  a  probable  intermediate 
state  of  the  departed  to  be  gathered  from  certain 
passages  of  Holy  Scripture  necessitated  the  doctrine 
of  Purgatory  as  a  corollary  therefrom.  They  denied 
that  the  natural  prominence  of  Peter  amongst 
the  Apostles  involved  a  corresponding  official  pre- 


206       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

eminence,  or  that  the  Rock  referred  to  in  Matt, 
xvi.,  1 8.,  could  be  logicall}^  interpreted  to  mean  the 
Apostle  himself.  So  for  the  same  good  logical  reasons 
they  denied  that  the  mere  use  of  the  word  "Bishop" 
in  the  New  Testament,  as  another  title  for  Presbyter, 
involved  the  necessary  and  inevitable  conclusion 
{Think  of  it!)  not  merely  that  the  Episcopate  was  a 
separate  Order  altogether  from  the  Presbyterate, 
differentiated  by  Divine  Command  therefrom  {oj 
which  there  is  not  one  atom  of  evidence) ,  but  that  even 
this  purely  hypothetical  "Order,"  was  again  by 
Divine  Command,  to  be  regarded  as  so  absolutely 
essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church :  that  where- 
ever,  for  any  reason,  it  ceased  to  exist,  there  the  Church 
herself  ceased  to  exist.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  assert 
that  the  Reformers  were  absolutely  unassailable  in 
this  position.  There  is  no  more  reason  for  accepting 
the  theory  that  the  Episcopate  is  absolutely  essential 
to  the  being  of  the  Church,  than  there  is  for  accepting 
the  corresponding  dogma  that  the  Papacy  is  thus 
necessary.  The  reasons  for  the  one  conclusion  are 
precisely  as  good  for  the  other.  There  is  not  a  line  of 
Scripture  that  justifies  either  conclusion,  not  one  line 
that  can  justify  the  extravagant  hypothesis  of  the 
Roman  Church  that  the  successors  of  Peter  (even 
assuming  that  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome)  were  to  be 
recognized  as  the  Supreme  Heads  of  Christendom, 
whose  mandates  were  to  be  obeyed  by  all  Churches, 
whose  opinions  upon  matters  of  doctrine  pronounced 
ex  cathedra  were  to  be  respected  as  infallible  and 
submission  to  whom,  "on  the  part  of  every  man 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       207 

...  is  altogether  necessary  for  his  salvation" 
(Bvll-Unam  Sanctam)\  nor  one  line  that  can  vindi- 
cate the  equally  as  extravagant  theory  of  High 
Churchmen  that  the  Episcopate  was  established  at 
the  very  outset  by  Divine  Command,  as  a  distinct 
"Order"  (modern  sense)  from  the  Presbyterate, 
absolutely  essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church, 
that  no  Ministry  save  that  which  was  authorized  by 
them  was  to  be  recognized  of  God,  no  Sacrament  to  be 
regarded  as  valid  which  was  not  performed  under 
their  direction — no  body  of  Christians  to  be  respected 
as  a  "Church"  which  did  not  recognize  their  author- 
ity, that,  in  fact,  "the  Episcopal  dignity  is  so  neces- 
sary in  the  Church,  that  without  a  Bishop  there 
cannot  exist  any  Church,  nor  any  Christian  man; 
no,  not  so  much  as  in  name."  {British  Critic.) 
We  say  there  is  not  one  line  of  Holy  Scripture 
that  can  he  cited  as  proof  of  the  truth  of  such  conclusions, 
nor  any  number  of  lines  which  can  be  logically  combined 
to  demonstrate  these  conclusions  as  teachings  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Since  it  is  explicitly  stated  in  Art.  VL, 
that  "Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary 
to  salvation;  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein, 
nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of 
any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  Article  of 
the  Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to 
salvation,"  and  is  still  further  asserted  in  Art.  XX., 
that  "although  the  Church  be  a  witness  and  a  keeper 
of  Holy  Writ,  yet,  as  it  ought  not  to  decree  anything 
against  the  same,  so  besides  the  same  ought  it  not  to 
enforce  anything  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of  Salva- 


208       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

tion'^;  since  again,  both  these  Articles  are  official 
statements  of  the  doctrinal  position  of  this  Church 
on  the  matters  in  question,  we  assert  once  more 
without  fear  of  logical  contradiction,  that  neither  the 
Anglican  Reformers,  nor  the  Church  whose  official 
formularies  they  established,  countenance  this  theory 
(viz :  that  the  Episcopate  is  necessary  to  the  being  of 
the  Church,  its  Ministry,  and  its  Sacraments)  as  of 
Scriptural  Authority,  and  therefore  necessary  to  be 
believed.  To  throw  aside  the  Editorial  "We,"  for 
a  moment,  and  to  speak  as  an  individual  man — / 
do  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  Necessity  of  the  Episco- 
pate to  the  being  of  the  Church,  the  Ministry,  afid  the 
Sacraments,  is  a  doctrine  that  cannot  be  found  anywhere 
in  Holy  Scripture;  one  that  can  not  be  deduced  as  a 
NECESSARY  logical  conclusion  from  any  passage, 
or  passages,  of  Holy  Scripture,  that,  personally,  I  do 
7iot  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  I  challenge  any  man  to 
PROVE  that  my  position  is  inconsistent  with  the  of- 
ficial doctrine  of  the  Church  as  set  forth  in  her  Prayer 
Book,  Articles  and  other  formularies,  or  that,  to  be  still 
more  speci^c,  Articles  VI.  and  XX.  alone,  do  not  justify 
me,  as  a  loyal  member  of  this  Church,  in  refusing  to 
admit  that  such  a  doctrine  is  required  by  this  Church  as 
a  necessary  article  of  belief,  to  which  every  loyal  son 
must  subscribe.  So,  of  course,  if  the  doctrine  cannot 
be  proved  necessary  out  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  so 
required  of  every  man  to  be  believed,  it  cannot  be 
forced  upon  the  Church  as  necessary,  and  it  is  idle 
to  assert  that  a  theory  of  the  Church  Universal  which, 
upon  the  assumption  that  it  is  true,  unchurches  one- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       209 

fourth  of  the  Christian  world,  pronounces  their 
Ministry  invaUd,  and  all  their  Sacraments  void,  it 
is  idle  to  assert  that  such  a  theory  can  be  defended 
as  having  the  official  support  of  this  Church.  The 
truth  is  that  modern  scholars  have  long  ago  abandoned 
the  attempt  to  defend  the  theory  on  the  statements  of 
Holy  Scripture  itself.  This  is  well  known  to  be  im- 
possible. They  now  resort  to  the  more  plausible, 
because  more  obscure,  theory  of  doctrinal  ''develop- 
ment. "  In  short,  since  it  is  well  understood  that  the 
idea  of  the  Episcopate  commonly  entertained  to-day, 
that  it  is  a  separate  "Order"  from  the  Presbytcrate, 
the  exclusive  channel  of  Divine  Grace,  etc.,  is  the 
outcome  of  a  long  process  of  historical  "development, " 
the  effort  is  now  made  to  justify  these  exclusive  pre- 
tensions on  the  ground  that  they  are  the  product  of 
a  doctrinal  development  carried  out  under  the  guidance 
and  inspiration  of  the  Divine  Spirit  III  But  here,  we 
are  face  to  face  with  the  same  problem,  by  what 
criterion  are  we  to  decide  when  a  so-called  ''develop- 
ment'' is  to  be  regarded  as  a  true  or  false  expression 
of  the  Divine  purpose,  a  normal  or  abnormal  develop- 
ment. IManifestly,  as  we  have  already  seen,  by 
submitting  its  conclusion  to  the  test  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, in  order  that  it  may  appear  whether  it  be  con- 
formable or  not  to  the  fundamental  and  unchangeable 
"logos"  of  Divine  Revelation.  Now,  when  we 
apply  this  test  in  the  present  instance  we  discover 
that  although  it  can  be  argued  with  good  reason  that 
Episcopacy  is  unquestionably  allowable  under  this 
Divine  Constitution,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in 
14 


2IO       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

the  said  Constitution  to  justify  the  conclusion  that 
it  is  absolutely  essential — that  no  Church  can  exist 
without  it,  which,  please  remember,  is  the  whole 
point  of  the  controversy.  It  is  certainly  allowable, 
because  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  prohibit  the 
Church  from  adopting  what  form  of  Government  it 
pleases.  Since  the  power  to  create  what  offices  and 
officers  it  pleases,  is  divinely  given  to  the  Church, 
if  she  choose  to  appoint  an  Order  of  Bishops,  such 
Bishops  necessarily  act  with  Divine  Authority.  It  is 
also  equally  true,  that  if  the  same  Church  again, 
for  any  reason,  prefers  to  abolish  this  office  for  some 
other  governmental  arrangement,  she  has  the  Divine 
Right  to  do  so,  and  these  new  offices  possess  the  same 
Divine  Authority  as  the  former.  While,  therefore, 
it  can  easily  be  shown  that  Bishops  govern  by  Divine 
Authority  in  every  Chiirch  which  has  established  an 
Episcopal  form  of  government,  it  can  never  be  shown 
that  in  a  Church  which  prefers  to  adopt  a  Presbyterian 
form  of  government.  Presbyters  do  not  govern  with 
a  like  Divine  Authority.  While,  therefore.  Episco- 
pacy as  a  lawful  and  divinely  sanctioned  institution, 
can  be  easily  defended,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a 
normal,  historic  development,  in  thorough  harmony 
with  the  ^^ logos"  of  Divine  Revelation,  the  assump- 
tion that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  being  of 
the  Church,  the  Ministry,  the  Sacraments,  etc.,  is  a 
doctrine  that  can  lay  no  claim  to  Divine  Authority. 
It  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  ^'logos''  of  Revelation, 
but  in  absolute  contradiction  therewith — a7i  abnormal 
"development.'" 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       211 

Nay,  more!  To  show  what  a  mere  cobweb  the 
entire  theory  is,  even  when  we  lay  aside  the  state- 
ments of  Holy  Scripture  and  direct  our  attention 
to  the  testimony  of  History  alone,  while  we  find  ample 
evidence  that  the  Episcopate  as  an  historic  institu- 
tion has  been  in  existence  in  some  form,  and  in  some 
quarters  of  the  Christian  world,  from  the  days  of  the 
Apostles  downward  (so  amply  vindicating  the  state- 
ment in  the  Preface  to  our  Ordinal  that  "from  the 
Apostle  time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of  Minis- 
ters in  Christ's  Church — Bishops,  Priests,  and  Dea- 
cons") yet  we  are  able  to  discover  no  statements 
whatever  in  the  writings  of  any  of  the  early  Fathers 
that  in  any  way  prove  that  they  regarded  the  Episco- 
pate as  necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  because 
the  only  channel  through  which  the  Divine  Authority 
originally  given  to  the  Apostles  could  be  transmitted. 
Even  so  prejudiced  a  writer  as  Newman  does  not 
hesitate  to  admit  this,  saying  that  "if,  in  order  that  a 
doctrine  be  considered  Catholic,  it  must  be  formally 
stated  by  the  Fathers  generally  from  the  very  first, 
.  .  .  the  doctrine  also  of  the  Apostolical  Succession 
in  the  Episcopal  Order  'has  not  the  Jaijitest  pretensions 
of  being  a  Catholic  truth.'''  {Development  oj  Christ. 
Doctrine,  p.  14.)  He  contends  that  the  evidence  for 
the  truth  of  this  doctrine  is  of  precisely  the  same  kind 
as  that  which  supports  the  dogma  of  Papal  Supremacy — 
a  fact  which  we  most  cheerfully  concede.  The  one  is 
just  as  worthy  to  be  believed  as  the  other.  Neither  is 
justified  by  any  statement  of  Holy  Scripture — neither 
can  claim  to  be  a  true  development  conforming  to  the 


212       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

"logos"  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  both  are  abnormal 
products  of  a  mere  association  of  ideas  by  no  means 
following  as  a  necessary  conclusion  from  the  data  of 
Revelation.  In  fact,  nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that  no  one  form  of  Ecclesiastical  Government  is 
laid  down  as  necessary  or  essential  in  Holy  Scripture. 
To  claim  New  Testament  authority  for  the  theory 
that  the  Episcopal  form  is  absolutely  essential  to  the 
being  of  the  Church,  the  Ministry,  and  the  Sacra- 
ments, when  the  Episcopate  is  not  even  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament  as  a  separate  and  superior 
"Order,"  nor  any  form  of  government  alluded  to  as 
existing  save  that  of  Bishops  or  Presbyters  (one  and 
the  same  Order)  and  further  to  claim  that  such  a 
baseless  theory  was  fastened  upon  this  Church  as  an 
official  doctrine  by  the  Anglican  Reformers,  is  to 
found  the  theology  of  Ecclesia  Anglicana  upon  a  tissue 
of  assumptions  no  less  unreal  and  fanciful  as  that 
which  supports  the  air  castle  of  the  Papacy.  We 
have  already  shown  conclusively  from  the  statements 
of  the  Anglican  Reformers  themselves,  as  well  as 
from  numerous  official  acts  of  the  Church  herself  in 
recognizing  other  forms  of  Ecclesiastical  Government, 
their  Ministry  and  their  Sacraments,  that  the  Angli- 
can Reformers  did  not  regard  the  Episcopal  form  of 
Government  as  in  any  sense  essential.  We  have 
quoted  the  words  of  no  less  a  "Catholic"  authority 
than  Keble  that  "they  never  venture  to  urge  its 
exclusive  claim,  or  to  connect  the  succession  with  the 
validity  of  the  Holy  Sacraments,"  and  also  the  state- 
ment of  Blunt  that  "it  was  not  until  the  close  of  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       213 

Sixteenth  Century  that  the  distinction  between  the 
Orders  of  Bishops  and  Priests  was  asserted."  It 
should  not  be  necessary  to  extend  the  evidence  fur- 
ther. As,  however,  the  impression  that  the  Re- 
formers regarded  the  Episcopal  Government  as 
necessary  in  the  Church  is  so  deep  rooted,  we  will 
risk  the  quotation  of  a  few  more  extracts  from  their 
writings.  Says  Archbishop  Whitgift,  "  I  confess  that 
in  a  Church  collected  together  in  one  place,  and  at 
liberty,  government  is  necessary  in  the  second  khid 
of  necessity,  but  that  any  ONE  kind  of  government 
is  so  necessary  that  without  it  the  Church  cannot  be 
saved,  or  that  it  cannot  be  altered  into  some  other 
kind  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I  utterly  deny. 
And  the  reasons  that  move  me  so  to  do,  are  these. 
The  first  is  because  I  find  no  one  certain  and  per- 
fect KIND  OF  government,  PRESCRIBED  OR  COM- 
MANDED   IN    THE    SCRIPTURES    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF 

CHRIST.  ...  So  that  notwithstanding  govern- 
ment, or  some  kind  of  government,  may  be  a  part 
of  the  Church,  touching  the  outward  form  and  per- 
fection of  it,  yet  it  is  not  such  a  part  of  the  essence 
or  being,  but  that  it  may  be  the  Church  of  Christ 
■without  this  or  that  kind  of  government,  and  therefore 

THE  KIND  OF  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH  IS  NOT 
NECESSARY    UNTO    SALVATION."       {Works,    vol.    i.,    p. 

184.)     Again,  "I  deny  that  the  scriptures  do 

.  .  .  SET  DOWN  ANY  ONE  CERTAIN  FORM  AND  KIND 
OF  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  ChURCH  TO  BE  PERPETUAL 
FOR  ALL  TIMES,  PERSONS,  AND  PLACES  WITHOUT  ALTER- 
ATION."    {Id.,  p.    184.)     Dr.  John  Bridges  writes: 


214       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

"This  be  not  a  matter  of  necessity,  but  such  as  may 
be  varied,  being  but  a  form  and  manner  of  Ecclesi- 
astical Government  .  .  .  that  in  the  nature  thereof  is 
as  much  indifferent  as  the  solemnizing  this  or  that  day 
the  memorial  of  the  Lord' s  Resurrection  .  .  .  therefore 
.  .  .  we  ought  neither  to  condemn,  nor  speak,  nor 
think  evil  of  other  good  Churches  that  use  another 
Ecclesiastical  Government  than  we  do,  neither  ought 
they  to  do  the  like  of  ours."  {Defense  of  Gov.  Estah. 
in  Ch.  England,  pp.  319,  320.)  "As  for  this  ques- 
tion of  Church  Government,"  declares  Bishop 
Cooper,  "I  mean  not  at  this  time  to  stand  much  on 

it.  .  .  .  ONLY  THIS  I  DESIRE,  THAT  THEY  WILL  LAY 
DOWN  OUT  OF  THE  WORD  OF  GOD  SOME  JUST  PROOFS, 
AND  A  DIRECT  COMMANDMENT,  THAT  THERE  SHOULD 
BE  IN  ALL  AGES  AND  STATES  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF 
CHRIST  ONE  ONLY  FORM  OF  OUTWARD  GOVERNMENT. 

.  .  .  Surely,  as  grave  learned  men  as  most  that 
have  written  in  this  time  ...  do  make  good  proof 
of  this  proposition :  that  one  form  of  government 

IS  NOT  necessary  IN  ALL  TIMES  AND  PLACES  OF  THE 

CHURCH."  {Admon.  to  People  of  Eng.,  pp.  61-63.) 
Dr.  Richard  Cosin,  Dean  of  the  Arches  (1584)  in- 
quires, "Are  all  the  Churches  of  Denmark,  Sweve- 
land,  Poland,  Germany,  Rhetia,  Vallis,  Telluria, "  etc. 
.  .  .  "in  all  points,  either  of  substance  or  of  cir- 
cumstance, disciplinated  alike?  Nay,  they  neither 
are,  can  be,  nor  yet  need  so  to  be :  seeing  that  it  can- 
not BE  PROVED  THAT  ANY  SET  AND  EXACT  PARTICULAR 
FORM    THEREOF   IS    RECOMMENDED    UNTO    US    BY   THE 

WORD  OF  GOD. "     {Answer  to  a7i  Abstract,  p.  ^8.)    To 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       215 

the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Richard  Hooker, 
than  whom  there  is  no  greater  authority.  He  says, 
"But  we  must  note,  that  he  which  affirmeth  speech 
to  be  necessary  among  all  men  throughout  the  world, 
doth  not  thereby  import  that  all  men  must  necessa- 
rily speak  one  kind  of  language.  Even  so  the  necessity 
of  Polity  and  Regiment  in  all  Churches  may  he  held 

WITHOUT  HOLDING  ANY  ONE  CERTAIN  FORM  TO  BE 

NECESSARY  IN  THEM  ALL. "  {Eccles.  Polity,  book 
iii.,  ch.  ii.  i.,  p.  352.)  He  has  just  stated,  a  few 
lines  in  advance,  that  "Church-Polity  .  .  .  con- 
taineth  both  Government  and  also  whatsoever  besides 
belongeth  to  the  ordering  of  the  Church  in  public. " 
Moreover,  it  may  be  added  that  the  whole  point  of 
the  controversy  with  the  Puritans  on  the  subject  of 
Episcopacy,  lay  in  the  contention  of  the  English  Di- 
vines that  although  Episcopacy  was  not  commanded  in 
Holy  Scripture,  that  nevertheless  it  was  allowable, 
because  NO  one  form  of  Government  had  been  com- 
manded therein,  hence  the  Church  was  left  at  liberty 
to  adopt  what  form  she  pleased.  In  fact,  nothing  is 
more  patent  to  any  one  who  reads  the  account  of 
these  controversies,  and  this  in  itself  should  settle 
the  whole  question,  as  to  the  attitude  assumed  by 
the  Anglican  Divines.  On  this  point.  Hooker  further 
testifies  as  follows: — "It  hath  been  told  them  (the 
Puritans)  that  matters  of  faith,  and  in  general 
MATTERS  necessary  UNTO  SALVATION  are  of  a 
different  nature  from  ceremonies,  order,  and  the 
kind  of  church  government:  that  the  one  is 
necessary  to  he  expressly  contained  in  the  Word  of  God, 


2i6       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

or  else  manifestly  collected  out  of  the  same,  the  other 
NOT  so:  that  it  is  necessary  not  to  receive  the  one, 
unless  there  be  something  in  Scripture  for  them; 
the  other  free,  if  nothing  against  them  may  thence  he 
alleged:  .  .  .  (The  Puritans  allege  that)  mat- 
ters OF  DISCIPLINE  AND    CHURCH    GOVERNMENT  are 

matters  necessary  to  salvation  and  'of  faith,' 

whereas  we  put  a  difference  between  the  one  and  the 
other.'"  Again,  he  says,  "Two  things  misliked  (by 
the  Puritans)  the  one,  that  WE  distinguish  matters 
OF  discipline  and  church  government  from  mat- 
ters OF  FAITH  AND  NECESSARY  UNTO  SALVATION. 
.    .    .      Their  words  {i.  e.,  the  Puritans)  are  these. 

.  .  .  YOU  say,  MATTERS  NECESSARY  TO  SALVATION 
AND  OF  FAITH  ARE  CONTAINED  IN  SCRIPTURE.  .  .  . 
YOU  OPPOSE  THESE  THINGS  TO  CEREMONIES,  ORDER, 
DISCIPLINE,      AND      GOVERNMENT."        {Id.)      Nothing 

could  be  plainer  than  these  words.  A  little  later  on, 
we  find  even  Lord  Bacon,  a  layman,  testifying  to  the 
same  effect,  "That  there  should  be  one  form  of 
DISCIPLINE  IN  ALL  CHURCHES,  and  that  imposed  hy 
necessity  of  a  commandment  and  prescript  out  of  the 
Word  of  God  ...  I,  for  my  part,  do  confess,  that 
in  revolving  the  Scriptures,  I  could  never  find  any 
such  thing:  hut  that  God  had  left  the  like  liberty  to  the 
Church  Government,  as  He  had  done  to  the  Civil  Gov- 
ernment; to  be  varied  according  to  time,  and  place,  and 
accidents,  which  nevertheless  His  high  and  divine 
Providence  doth  order  and  dispose.  ...  So  like- 
wise in  Church  Matters,  the  substance  of  Doctrine  is 
immutable;  and  so  are  the  general  rules  of  govern- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       217 

ment,  but  for  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  for  the  par- 
ticular HIERARCHIES,  policies,  and  Discipline  of 
Churches,  they  be  left  at  large."  (Cert.  Consid. 
touching  Pacif.  of  Church,  Works,  ed.  1819,  vol.  ii., 
PP-  529,  530.)  And  so  we  might  continue  such 
quotations  indefinitely. 

Finally,  if  there  are  any  who,  in  spite  of  all  this 
evidence  are  still  disposed  to  question  our  assertion 
that  the  Church  does  not  regard  the  Episcopate  as 
absolutely  essential  and  who  are  unwilling  (however 
unreasonably)  to  accept  the  plain  statements  of  such 
prominent  authorities  as  Whitgift  Bridges,  Cooper, 
Dr.  Richard  Cosin,  Hooker,  and  numbers  of  others, 
on  the  ground  that,  however  prominent  or  illustrious, 
their  words  express  only  their  private  opinions,  and 
can  not  be  cited  as  official,  yet,  in  spite  of  all  this, 
we  will  go  further  and  endeavour  to  satisfy  their 
scepticism  on  this  point  also.  To  those  who  cannot 
see  that  the  official  recognition  of  non-episcopal  bodies 
as  true  Churches  is  synonymous  with  the  official 
recognition  of  the  validity  of  other  forms  of  Church 
Government  than  the  Episcopal,  which  is  again 
official  recognition  of  the  fact  that  Episcopacy  is  not 
essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  hence  again  that 
no  one  form  of  Government  is  essential  in  the  Church 
of  God  (which  is  precisely  what  the  above  mentioned 
writers  have  told  us) :  to  those,  we  say,  who  because  of 
some  peculiarity  of  their  mental  constitution  are  not 
able  to  appreciate  that  fact,  we  will  present  something 
more  direct  and  tangible.  In  the  very  opening  sen- 
tences of  the  Preface  to  our  Prayer  Book,  we  are 


2i8       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

distinctly  told  that  matters  of  "Discipline'' — i.  e., 
Church  Government — are  things  that  may  be  ''al- 
tered, abridged,  enlarged,  amended,  or  otherwise  dis- 
posed qf"  as  the  Church  deems  fit — hence,  that  no 
one  form  of  "DiscipHne"  or  Government  can  be  laid 
down  as  indispensable.  This  is  such  a  plain  state- 
ment, and  so  clear  a  justification  of  our  whole  con- 
tention, that  to  one  who  is  not  burdened  with  the 
necessity  of  proving  the  truth  of  another  theory, 
it  would  never,  perhaps,  be  called  in  question.  Yet, 
even  so,  we  realize  that  there  are  some  who  will 
attempt  to  urge  frivolous  and  captious  objections  to 
this  interpretation  upon  the  ground  that  the  word 
"Discipline"  here  used,  is  too  broad  and  indefinite 
in  its  significance  to  be  insisted  upon  in  this  connec- 
tion. This,  however,  will  not  do.  There  are  but 
three  meanings  attached  to  the  word  in  theological 
literature.  First,  it  is  used  quite  commonly  to  refer 
to  certain  methods  of  punishment  employed  by  a 
Church,  or  a  religious  organization  of  some  sort, 
towards  the  transgressors  of  its  rules  and  practices; 
second,  it  is  employed  specifically  as  denoting 
government  or  regimen  itself,  and  in  contrast  with 
such  words  as  ntes,  ceremonies,  etc.;  third,  it  is 
employed  oftentimes,  again,  in  a  general  sense,  as 
referring  to  everything  connected  with  the  practical 
machinery  of  the  Church,  in  contrast  with  its  abstract 
principles  of  belief,  termed — Doctrine.  Now,  as  it  is 
self-evident  that  it  cannot  be  used  here  in  the  first 
sense,  it  follows,  of  course,  that  it  must  be  used  in  one 
of  the  two  remaining  senses,  and  as  both  of  these  com- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       219 

prehend  the  matter  of  Government,  it  is  a  matter  of 
indifference  which  one  may  be  preferred,  as  in  either 
case  our  point  is  established.  To  be  more  specific, 
if  used  here  in  the  Preface  in  the  second  sense,  it 
refers  directly  to  Government  and  nothing  else;  if 
used  in  the  third  sense,  it  includes  Government  along 
with  rites  and  ceremonies.  There  is  absolutely  no 
way  of  escape,  therefore,  from  admitting  that  the 
Church  has  here  officially  set  her  seal  to  the  above 
assertions  of  some  of  her  most  eminent  expositors, 
and  that  here,  as  in  most  other  cases,  the  "judicious" 
Hooker  can  be  pretty  well  depended  upon  as  express- 
ing her  authorized  teaching.  But,  even  if  we  did  not 
have  this  evidence  before  us,  a  little  reflection  upon 
this  statement  of  the  Preface  should  thoroughly  con- 
vince any  one  that  the  matter  of  Government  is 
necessarily  implied.  Thus,  it  is  distinctly  stated 
that  "in  every  Church,  what  cannot  be  clearly  de- 
termined to  belong  to  Doctrine,  must  be  referred  to 
Discipline;  and,  therefore  (i.  e.,  for  that  very  reason), 
by  common  consent  and  authority,  may  be  altered, 
abridged,  enlarged,  amended,  or  otherwise  disposed  of, 
as  may  seem  most  convenient, "  etc.  Now  as  matters 
of  Church  Government  or  Polity  are  certainly  distinct 
from  matters  of  Doctrine  they  "must  be  referred  to 
Discipline;  and,  therefore,  by  common  consent  and 
authority,  may  be  altered.'"  Nor  would  it  do  our 
opponents  any  good  to  resort  to  the  extravagant 
hypothesis,  that  the  Form  of  Government  or  Polity 
of  the  Church  is  a  matter  of  Doctrine,  for  aside  from 
the  fact  that  this  is  contrary  to  all  ecclesiastical  usage, 


220       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

this  assumption  would  be  of  no  use  to  them  whatever, 
unless  they  could  further  show  that  it  was  a  Doctrine 
absolutely  essential,  for  that  is  the  whole  point  at 
issue.  There  are  many  minor  points  of  Doctrine  in 
which  even  "Catholics"  admit  that  they  differ,  many 
doctrines  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches  which 
the  "Catholics"  within  our  Communion  cannot 
subscribe  to,  but  which  they  do  not  regard  as  of 
such  magnitude  as  to  exclude  these  bodies,  the  Greek 
and  Roman  Communions  from  the  Church  Catholic. 
A  mere  difference  in  point  of  Doctrine  does  not  in 
itself,  therefore,  necessarily  mean  anything  of  serious 
importance.  The  Doctrine  must  be  an  essential 
one,  if  failure  to  hold  it  means  exclusion  from  the 
Church  Catholic.  Assuming,  then,  that  the  matter 
of  Episcopal  Government  is  a  matter  of  Doctrine, 
what  of  it?  It  must  be  either  a  Doctrine  which  is 
essential  or  non-essential.  If  the  latter,  the  failure 
of  any  particular  body  of  Christians  to  believe  in  it 
and  to  adopt  it,  does  not  exclude  them  from  the  Catholic 
Church.  Hence,  in  this  event,  our  contention  is 
admitted.  It  must,  therefore,  be  assumed  to  be  an 
ESSENTIAL  doctrine,  if  the  "Catholic"  argument  is 
to  stand.  Where  then  is  this  essential  Doctrine 
set  forth  by  the  Church?  The  Creeds  are  usually 
assumed  to  contain  all,  the  essential  Doctrines  of 
the  Church:  Where  do  the  Creeds  assert  that  the 
Episcopal  Form  of  Government  is  essential  or 
necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Church  ?  The  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  treat  of  various  doctrinal  questions, 
more  or  less  important,  but  where,  even  in  them,  is 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       221 

the  Episcopal  form  of  Government  asserted  to  be 
ESSENTIAL  to  the  BEING  of  the  Church  ?  But  we 
need  not  stop  with  this  mere  negative  argument.  It 
is  positively  asserted  by  the  Church,  both  in  the  VI. 
and  XXII.  Articles,  that  no  Doctrine  which  is  not 
actually  to  be  read  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  can  be  proved 
directly  therefrom  is  to  be  required  of  any  one 
as  ESSENTIAL.     Now  there  is   not  a  single 

PASSAGE  in  the  ENTIRE  BIBLE  WHEREIN  THE  EPISCO- 
PAL FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT  IS  ASSERTED  TO  BE  NECES- 
SARY TO  THE  BEING  OF  THE  CHURCH,  NOR  IS  THERE 
A  SINGLE  PASSAGE  FROM  WHICH  SUCH  A  PROPOSITION 
CAN  BE  DEDUCED  AS  A  NECESSARY  CONCLUSION.      It  IS 

notorious  that  the  Episcopate,  as  a  separate  Order, 
and  claiming  the  exclusive  prerogatives  now  assigned 
to  it  by  "Catholics"  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament  nor  is  there  a  single  line  of  Scripture 
that  supports  any  of  these  assumptions,  much  less  its 
alleged  necessity  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church. 
Even  the  best  writers  in  defence  of  "cathoHc" 
theories  now  admit  this,  and  do  not  pretend  to  de- 
fend their  tenets  upon  any  direct  statements  of  the 
Bible  respecting  Episcopacy.  On  the  contrary,  they 
admit  everything  that  their  opponents  affirm  on  this 
point,  and  say  freely  that  although  the  Episcopate 
as  a  separate  Order  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  nor  anything  respecting  its  necessity, 
yet  that  we  find  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testament  ex- 
ercising a  certain  superintendence  over  the  Churches, 
and  in  the  next  century  we  find  a  class  of  men  called 
Bishops  exercising  a  like  superintendence,  and  evi- 


222       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

dently  having  succeeded  to  the  office  and  authority 
of  the  Apostles.  Thus  the  appeal  is  an  appeal  to 
History — not  to  any  direct  statement  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  even  when  the  facts  of  Scripture  are  considered 
in  connection  with  these  subsequent  historic  facts, 
the  "catholic"  interpretation  of  them  is  problematic 
in  the  extreme,  and  moreover  when  dealt  with  in 
the  most  partial  and  sympathetic  manner,  under  no 
circumstances  can  it  be  regarded  as  a  certain  or 
necessary  conclusion.  We  shall  discuss  this  matter 
presently,  but  it  is  sufficient  here  and  now  to  observe 
that  (a)  the  Apostles'  own  statements  contradict  the 
very  first  assumption  that  they  occupied  a  position 
as  a  separate  "Order''  over  and  above  the  Presby- 
terate ;  (b)  that  the  position  occupied  by  the  Bishops 
of  the  Second  Century  was  by  no  means  identical 
with  that  which  is  now  claimed  for  them  by  "Catho- 
lics, "  nor  was  the  Episcopate  as  then  conceived,  uni- 
versally recognized  throughout  the  Church;  nor, 
finally,  (c)  according  to  the  statements  of  the  best 
modern  scholars  {e.  g.,  Lightfoot)  is  there  any  warrant 
whatever  for  the  assumption  that  these  Bishops  of  the 
Second  Century  succeeded  to  the  office  and  authority 
of  the  Apostles,  whatever  that  may  have  been.  At 
best  then,  the  "Catholic  view  is  a  theory  only,  and 
whatever  circumstantial  evidence  may  be  brought 
forward  to  lend  it  plausibility,  it  is  absolutely  safe 

TO  SAY  THAT  IT  CAN  NEVER  BE  DEMONSTRATED 
AS  certain;  yet  if  ESSENTIAL — NECESSARY  TO  THE 

VERY  BEING  OF  THE  CHURCH  IT  MUST  BE  DE- 
MONSTRABLE.  Moreover,  if  an  essential  doctrine, 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       223 

it  must  be  explicitly  set  forth  somewhere  in  the  formu- 
laries of  the  Church — i.  e.,  in  so  many  words,  not  by 
implication.  It  is  only  non-essentials  that  may  be 
left  to  inference.  In  conclusion,  then,  it  may  be 
said  that  it  was  to  guard  against  just  this  very  class 
of  more  or  less  probable  hypotheses  being  thrust  upon 
the  Church  as  essential  doctrines,  that  Art.  VI. 
was  framed.  No  tenet  however  plausible  or  reason- 
able was  to  be  forced  upon  the  Church  as  an  essen- 
TL\L  doctrine,  i.  e.,  ''required  .  .  .  that  it  should 
be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  Faith,  or  be  thought  requi- 
site or  necessary  to  Salvation''  that  could  not  be  ac- 
tually found  in  THE  BIBLE  ITSELF,  either  actually 
"read  THEREIN,"  or  at  least  "proved  thereby." 
Now  it  is  simply  preposterous  for  any  man  to  assert 
that  the  doctrine  "no  bishop,  NO  church"  can  be 
actually  "read"  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  "proved 
thereby";  ergo,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  it, 
it  is  certainly  not  an  essential  doctrine  of  the 
Church — hence  cannot  be  made  an  instrument  of 
excommunication  from  the  Catholic  Church.  But, 
we  have  only  digressed  thus  far  to  be  accommodat- 
ing to  all  objectors.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  con- 
trary to  all  ecclesiastical  usage  to  assume  that 
forjvis  of  government  or  polity  are  to  be  classed 
under  "Doctrine,''  rather  than  under  "Discipline." 
We  have  already  produced  the  necessary  evidence  to 
prove  that  the  Church  has  here,  in  the  Preface  to  the 
Prayer  Book,  alluded  to  "Government"  as  one  of  the 
matters  included  under  the  word  "Discipline."  We 
need  only  add  that  all  doubt  of  this  being  the  true 


224       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

interpretation,  will  be  removed,  if  any  one  will  take 
the  trouble  to  look  up  the  same  word  in  the  authorized 
Canons  of  the  Church  of  England.  Thus,  we  read  in 
Canon  7,  of  the  Church  of  England: — "Whosoever 
shall  hereafter  affirm,  that  the  Government  {regimen 
et  discipUnam)  of  the  Church  of  England  under  his 
Majesty  by  Archbishops,  Bishops,  Deans,  Arch- 
deacons, and  the  rest  that  bear  office  in  the  same,  is 
antichristian,  or  repugnant, "  etc.  And  again.  Canon 
9,  "Whosoever  shall  hereafter  separate  themselves 
from  the  Communion  of  Saints  .  ,  .  accounting 
the  Christians  who  are  conformable  to  the  doctrine, 
GOVERNMENT  {disciplincB) ,  rites,  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Church  of  England,  to  be  profane, "  etc.  It 
will  be  seen  in  this  last  Canon  that  "Discipline" 
refers  specifically  to  Government  as  distinguished 
from  Doctrine,  Rites,  and  Ceremonies;  while,  in  the 
former  it  is  used  again  as  specifically  in  the  same 
sense — the  Government  by  Archbishops,  Bishops,  etc. 
There  is  no  shadow  of  doubt,  therefore  that  the  word 
as  thus  used  in  the  official  literature  of  the  Church 
always  comprehends  "Government"  along  with  Rites 
and  Ceremonies,  and  everything  else  which  is  not 
Doctrine,  or  else  refers  to  Government  alone.  Con- 
sequently, there  is  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  but  that 
the  Church  comprehends  or  includes  Government,  as 
among  those  matters  of  "Discipline,"  which  she 
OFFICIALLY  asserts  (in  the  Preface  to  the  Prayer 
Book)  may  be  ''altered"  or  changed  when  circum- 
stances really  demand  it.  No  matter  what  view  of 
the  matter,  "Catholics"  may  elect,  then,  the  possi- 


I 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       225 

bility  of  proving  that  Episcopal  Government  is 
necessary — ay,  even  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church, 
is  wholly  out  of  the  question.  Whether  you  prefer 
to  class  this  matter  logically  under  "Discipline," 
or  illogically  under  "Doctrine"  is  a  matter  of  in- 
difference to  us  so  far  as  the  result  is  concerned,  for 
in  either  case,  the  Church  officially  asserts  that  it  is 
not  an  essential  matter,  hence  cannot  be  forced 
upon  Christendom  as  a  sine  qiia  non  of  membership 
in  the  Church  Catholic.  Whatever,  then,  may  be 
the  popular  theory  of  the  Episcopate,  who  repre- 
sents THE  OFFICIAL  view  ?    again  we  challenge 

ZANZIBAR  OR  ANY  OF  HIS  FELLOW  " CATHOLICS"  IN 
AMERICA  TO  PROVE  HIS  CHARGE  OF  "HERESY,"  TO 
PROVE  THAT  ANY  MINISTER  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  COM- 
MUNION IS  FALSE  TO  HIS  CHURCH  WHO  MAINTAINS 
A   SPECIFICALLY  "PROTESTANT"  (as  OPPOSED   TO 

"CATHOLIC")   VIEW  OF  the  episcopate  when 

OFFICIATING  EITHER  IN  A  CHURCH  WHICH  OFFICIALLY 
PROCLAIMS  ITSELF   "THE  PROTESTA NT EFISCOF Ah 

CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  IRELAND"  (Declaration, 
Act  of  Parliament,  1828),  OR  "the  PROTESTANT 

EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMER- 
ICA. (Title-page,  Prayer  Book.)  How  can  Pro- 
testantism be  "heresy"  in  a  Protestant  Church;  or — 
better  still,  How  can  "Catholic"  doctrines  be  ortho- 
dox and  Official  therein? 

IS 


VIII 
CONCLUSION 


997. 


VIII 
CONCLUSION 

AS  we  have  intimated  before,  the  crux  of  the 
"Catholic"  theory  of  the  Episcopate  con- 
sists in  the  assumption  that  the  Episcopate 
is  a  separate  "Order"  from  the  Presbyterate,  and 
not  merely  an  "Office"  or  "Degree"  within  this  last 
Order.  As  the  distinction  is  by  no  means  well  under- 
stood by  the  public,  and  yet  as  it  is  vital  to  the 
discussion,  we  must  emphasize  it  somewhat  further. 
Without  entering  into  technical  theological  defini- 
tions, it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  illus- 
trate this  distinction  by  a  familiar  example.  Thus, 
every  one  knows  that  the  distinction  between  a  Dea- 
con and  a  Bishop  on  the  one  hand,  is  much  greater 
than  that  between  a  Bishop  and  an  Archbishop,  or  (to 
illustrate  by  reference  to  our  own  Communion) 
between  any  one  of  our  Diocesan  Bishops  and  the 
Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
The  first  distinction  is  one  that  involves  spiritual 
gifts  and  functions  of  widely  divergent  character, 
the  other  is  a  mere  arbitrary  distinction,  devised  by 
man  for  purposes  of  expediency  only,  and  involving 
no    distinction    of    spiritual    power    or    prerogative 

229 


230       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

whatever.  The  office  of  Presiding  Bishop  is  endowed 
with  no  pecuHar  spiritual  power  or  authority,  not 
characteristic  of  other  Bishops.  He  possesses  the 
same,  but  no  greater  spiritual  authority.  He  is 
merely  authorized  by  his  Church  or  Order  to  exercise 
certain  powers,  and  perform  certain  functions  for, 
and  representing,  the  whole  Body  of  the  Church  or 
Order,  which  powers  and  function  are  inherent  or 
potential  in  them,  and  only  exercised  by  him  as  their 
delegate.  Moreover,  as  an  actual  matter  of  fact, 
these  powers  and  functions  are,  for  the  most  part,  of 
a  material  and  economic  character,  relating  to  the 
mere  machinery  of  government,  and  are  not  of  a 
spiritual  or  sacramental  nature.  While,  therefore, 
it  may  be  difficult  to  give  a  definition  that  would  be 
strictly  accurate,  we  may  summarize  the  essence  of 
the  distinction  as  follows: 

(i)  An  order  of  the  ministry  is  a  class  of 
individuals  endowed  with  certain  specific  spiritual 
powers,  peculiar  to  them  alone,  which  powers  because 
SPIRITUAL  are  necessarily  from  above — that  is,  of 
Divine  origin  and  authority  whether  (a)  conferred 
directly  or  immediately  upon  the  group  as  such,  or 
whether  (b)  conferred  indirectly  or  mediately  through 
the  body  of  the  whole  Church  as  the  original  reser- 
voir of  such  Divine  Power. 

(2)  An  office  of  the  ministry,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  possessed  of  no  spiritual  power  peculiar 
to  itself  as  such,  but  is  merely  a  position  of  honor 
or  eminence  assigned  to  certain  individuals  for  the 
purpose  of  exercising  (only)  certain  powers  dele- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       231 

GATED  to  them  by  the  Church,  or  by  the  Order  to 
which  they  belong,  and  is  an  institution  which  may  or 
may  not  lay  claim  to  Apostolic  origin. 

Now,  according  to  "Catholic"  theory,  Bishops  are 
an  Order,  not  an  Office,  of  the  Ministry.  That  is  to 
say,  according  to  their  view  of  the  matter,  the 
Apostles  acting  under  express  command  of  Christ, 
established  three  distinct  Orders — Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons,  and  that  to  the  first  of  these  was  given 
as  their  peculiar  and  specific  characteristic,  the 
exclusive  power  of  Ordination.  On  the  other  hand, 
all  the  Afiglican  Reformers,  the  great  majority  of  the 
Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen,  and  practically  all  modern 
scholars  agree  in  asserting  that  there  is  no  warrant 
for  this  assumption  in  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  all  the  evi- 
dence goes  to  show  that  from  the  very  beginning 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  constituted  one  and  the  same 
Order,  and  that  the  priority  of  rank  apparently 
enjoyed  by  such  persons  as  Timothy  and  Titus 
indicates  nothing  more  than  a  mere  Office  or  Presi- 
dency in  the  one  Order  of  Presbyter-Bishops,  an  Office 
differing  in  no  essential  respect  from  that  enjoyed 
to-day  by  our  own  Presiding  Bishop  in  the  college 
or  assembly  of  his  equals  in  Order — the  House  of 
Bishops ;  and  that  aside  from  the  fact  that  in  the  very 
beginning  no  ordinations  were  performed  by  him 
without  tJie  co-operation  of  his  fellow  Presbyter-Bishops 
in  tlie  act,  no  subsequent  practice  of  ordaining  with- 
out their  co-operation  can  be  regarded  as  anything 
more  than   a  mere  delegation  of  the  authority  of  the 


232       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Presbytery  which  still  possesses  the  inherent  right 
and  power  of  its  Order. 

The  evidence  for  this  conclusion  may  be  briefly 
summarized  as  follows: — First  of  all,  no  one  ques- 
tions the  fact  that  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons 
are  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  but  it  is  now 
well-nigh  universally  conceded,  even  by  "Catholics" 
themselves,  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  words 
"Bishop"  and  "Elder"  (or  "Presbyter")  are  used 
indifferently  in  reference  to  the  same  Order  of  persons. 
Thus,  we  read  in  Acts  xx.,  17,  et  seq.,  as  follows: 
"And  from  Miletus  he  (Paul)  sent  to  Ephesus,  and 
called  the  Elders  of  the  Church.  And  when  they 
were  come  to  him,  he  said  unto  them  .  .  .  Take 
heed  .  .  .  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock, 
over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
overseers" — kzicKo-Kouq,  Bishops.  Again,  Paul  com- 
mands Titus  to  "ordain  Elders  in  every  city  as  I  had 
appointed  thee,  if  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of 
one  wife,  etc.  .  .  .  ior  a  Bishop  must  be  blameless," 
etc.  (Titus  I.  5).  Moreover,  the  only  Orders  of 
Ministers  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  in  2  Tim.  iii.,  when 
expounding  the  duties  of  the  Ministry,  are  ''Bishops'* 
(or  Elders)  and  "Deacons,"  and  likewise  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  the  only  Ministers  to 
whom  he  sends  salutation  are  the  ''Bishops  and 
Deacons'' — a  most  extraordinary  omission,  if  there 
were  another  Order  of  Elders  there  in  that  congre- 
gation distinct  from  the  Bishops.  Even  if  we  should 
shut  our  eyes  to  this  inexplicable  difficulty,  and 
assume    that    the    Bishops    here   referred    to   were 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       233 

Bishops  in  the  modern  acceptation  of  the  term,  we 
should  then  be  face  to  face  with  the  further  difficulty 
of  a  number  of  Bishops  presiding  over  the  one  Church 
in  the  city  of  Philippi,  without  the  assistance  of 
Presbyters,  and  only  aided  in  their  work  by  Deacons, 
a  state  of  affairs  altogether  incompatible  with 
"Catholic"  theory.  While  there  is  for  these  obvious 
reasons  no  possibility  of  proving  that  the  Bishops 
here  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  were  a  sepa- 
rate Order,  over  and  above  Presbyters  (and  this  line 
of  argument  is  now  generally  abandoned)  yet  it  is 
nevertheless  contended  that  the  Apostles  themselves, 
at  that  time,  constituted  this  third  or  highest  Order — 
that  they,  and  they  alone  ordained,  and  governed, 
and  further  appointed  others  (as  for  example 
Timothy  and  Titus)  to  their  Order  to  ordain  and 
govern  after  their  decease,  so  that  although  there  has 
been  a  change  in  name,  there  has  been  no  change  in 
fact,  but  from  the  very  beginning  three  Orders  have 
actually  existed.  Thus,  during  the  Apostles'  life- 
time, the  three  Orders  w^ere  characterized  as  follows: 

1st  Order  2d  Order  3d  Order 

Apostles.     Bishops  or  Elders.     Deacons. 

After  the  decease  of  the  original  Apostles,  however, 
their  successors  in  the  first  Order — out  of  respect  to 
the  memory  of  these  founders  of  the  Church — 
gave  up  the  name  or  title  of  "Apostles,"  and  called 
themselves  "  Bishops,"  while  the  second  Order 
simultaneously  surrendered  the  title  of  "  Bishop," 
and  called  themselves  Elders   or   Presbyters   only. 


234       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Thus,  the  foregoing  arrangement  was  converted  into 
the  following: 

jst  Order.  2d  Order.  3d  Order. 

Bishops.        Elders  or  Presbyters.         Deacons. 

Now  the  objections  to  this  explanation  are  many 
and  weighty. 

(ist)  There  is  nothing  whatever  to  warrant  this 
assumption  that  the  Apostles  considered  themselves 
a  third  Order  over  and  above  Elders  or  Presbyters  but, 
on  the  contrary,  the  Apostles  repeatedly  identify 
themselves  with  this  very  Order,  referring  to  themselves 
as  Elders. 

(2d)  The  Apostles  never  ordained  alone,  but 
always  in  conjunction  with  these  Elders,  with  whom 
they  identified  themselves. 

(3d)  The  Apostles  never  governed  alone,  but 
always  in  connection  with  the  Elders  or  Presbyters. 

Thus,  in  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  first  assertion, 
we  find  the  Apostle  Peter  characterizing  himself  as 
an  Elder  in  i  Peter  v.,  i,  "The  Elders  which  are 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  Elder.''  Also 
St.  John,  in  writing  to  "the  elect  lady"  (2  Johni.), 
and  to  "the  well  beloved  Gaius"  (3  John  i.)  speaks 
of  himself  as  ''the  Elder.'' 

In  proof  of  the  second,  we  find  St.  Paul  writing  to 
Timothy — "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  Prophecy,  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery"  (2  Tim.  iv.,  i),  a 
passage  which  offsets  the  interpretation  too  often 
placed  upon  2  Tim.  i.,  6,  to  the  effect  that  St.  Paul 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 


-^oo 


alone  laid  hands  upon  him  is  thoroughly  in  line  with 
all  the  evidence  of  the  age  immediately  succeeding. 
It  is  the  justification,  and  the  only  justification  of  the 
existing  practice  of  the  Church  to-day,  and  which  has 
come  down  from  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles,  in 
which  the  attending  Presbyters  invariably  take  part 
with  the  Bishop  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  {Vide — 
Rubric,  Ordering  of  Priests). 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  third  proposition,  it  can 
be  easily  proved  from  a  number  of  references,  that 
the  Apostles  were  never  accustomed  to  act  indepen- 
dently of  the  Elders  in  any  matters  connected  with 
the  general  government  of  the  Church.  In  every 
instance,  whether  the  question  were  one  of  doctrine 
or  discipline,  appeal  was  made  to  "the  Apostles 
and  Elders,''  and  the  official  decisions  and  decrees 
thereon,  were  always  set  forth  in  the  name  of  "the 
Apostles  and  Elders.''  Thus,  in  regard  to  the  great 
dissension  concerning  Circumcision  (one  of  the  very 
first  disputes  to  arise  within  the  Church)  it  was  "the 
Apostles  and  Elders  (that)  came  together  for  to 
consider  of  this  matter"  (Acts  xv.,  6).  It  was 
again  "the  Apostles  and  Elder s,  with  the  whole 
Church"  (Acts  xv.,  22)  that  sent  delegates  to  the 
Churches  in  Antioch  and  Syria  and  Cilicia — it  was 
"the  Apostles  and  Elders  and  brethren"  that  ad- 
dressed the  official  communication,  etc.,  and  finally, 
it  was  '^ the  decrees"  .  .  .  that  were  ordained  by  the 
Apostles  and  Elders"  {Id.,  xvi.,  4)  that  the  Churches 
of  Asia  Minor  looked  upon  as  authoritative. 

When,  therefore,  we  take  these  three  significant 


236       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

facts  into  consideration — (a)  That  the  Apostles  never 
ordained  alone,  but  always  in  connection  with  the  El- 
ders or  Presbyters ;  (b)  That  they  never  governed  alone, 
but  always  in  conjunction  with  the  Elders;  and  (c) 
That  they  clearly  identified  themselves  with  the  Order 
of  Elders  or  Presbyters,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible 
that  whatever  difference  existed  between  them  and 
the  rest  of  the  Elders  associated  with  them  was  one 
of  OFFICE,  not  one  of  ORDER.  In  short,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  New  Testament  to  warrant  the  assump- 
tion that  the  apparent  priority  of  the  Apostles,  and 
such  individuals  as  Timothy  and  Titus  after  them, 
among  their  fellow  Elders  or  Presbyters,  was  anything 
more  than  an  Office  of  Presidency.  They  were  simply 
Presiding  Elders,  but  always  Elders;  Moderators  and 
Directors  of  the  Presbytery,  but  having  no  power  to 
act  in  any  matter,  either  of  Ordination  or  of  Govern- 
ment, independently,  as  a  separate  Order.  In  other 
words,  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  respecting  Timothy,  Titus,  or  any  other 
representative  of  the  so-called  third  Order  that  has 
not  its  analogy  in  the  language  commonly  in  use  to- 
day respecting  our  Presiding  Bishops,  or  Archbishops. 
If  Titus  is  authorized,  personally,  to  "set  in  order" 
the  affairs  of  the  Church,  so  also  is  the  Presiding 
Bishop  of  this  Church  authorized  by  Canon  to  do  the 
same — if  the  former  is  authorized  to  "ordain  Elders 
in  every  city,"  so  also  is  the  Presiding  Bishop  of  this 
Church  authorized  by  Canon  to  "take  order  for  the 
Consecration"  of  every  Bishop  of  the  same,  is  com- 
manded by  Rubric  to  preside  over  and  conduct  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       237 

entire  Service  of  Consecration,  and,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  he  is  always  assisted  by  other  Bishops  in 
the  Laying  on  of  Hands,  is  none  the  less  officially 
regarded  Sis"the  Consecrator. "  If,  in  the  face  of  all 
these  significant  expressions,  it  remains  a  fact  that 
the  Presiding  Bishop  is  still  a  Bishop  and  nothing 
more,  and  that  this  language  was  not  intended  to 
imply  that  he  belonged  to  a  separate  Order,  or  that 
he  and  he  alone  really  bestowed  Consecration,  the 
other  Bishops  only  joining  in  the  ceremony  of  the 
Laying  on  of  Hands  as  a  mere  courtesy,  and  not 
actually  transmitting  any  Divine  Grace,  why  should  we 
inco7isistently  reverse  our  entire  position  when  we  come 
to  consider  the  position  of  Timothy  or  Titus?  The 
truth  is  there  is  no  justification  for  such  assumptions, 
and  while  there  is  doubtless  good  evidence  of  a 
certain  priority  of  Office,  in  the  case  of  these  men, 
there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  of  any  distinction  of 
Order.  Like  the  Presiding  Bishops  amongst  their 
fellow  Bishops  to-day,  these  men  doubtless  presided 
over  the  assemblies  of  their  fellow  Elders  or  Presby- 
ters, "set  in  order"  the  affairs  of  the  Churches,  took 
order  for  the  ordinations  of  others,  actually  superin- 
tended and  conducted  the  service  of  Ordination,  and 
may  even  have  been  regarded  as  '^tJie  Consecrators  " 
or  "ordainers. "  There  is  absolutely  nothing  to  show 
that  they  exercised  any  of  these  powers  independently 
of  their  fellow  Presbyters,  as  a  separate  exclusive  and 
superior  Order,  nothing  to  show  that  in  "setting  in 
order"  the  affairs  of  the  Churches,  they  did  so 
independently  of  the  Presbytery,  nothing  to  show 


238       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

that  in  laying  their  hands  upon  others,  they  were  not 
assisted  in  the  act  of  ordination  by  the  "laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  nor,  for  the  same 
reason,  we  may  add,  is  there  anything  to  show  that 
this  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbyterate  (which 
remember  we  continue  to  observe  to  this  day)  was  any 
the  less  a  real  transmission  of  Divine  Power  and 
Authority  than  is  the  corresponding  act  in  the  case 
of  the  Bishops  to-day  when  assisting  the  Presiding 
Bishop  in  the  Service  of  Consecration.  After  all  is 
said  and  done,  therefore,  it  remains  an  undeniable 
fact  that  Presbyters  do  ordain  to-day,  in  conjunction 
with  their  Bishops  just  as  truly  and  as  authoritatively 
as  the  Assisting  Bishops  do  truly  and  authoritatively 
consecrate  in  connection  with  their  Presiding  Bishop, 
and  there  is  no  more  reason  to  explain  away  the  first 
as  a  mere  meaningless  and  empty  rite,  than  there  is  to 
fix  a  like  interpretation  upon  the  second. 

Finally,  not  only  does  all  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  New  Testament  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
were  but  these  two  Orders  (Bishops  or  Presbyters, 
and  Deacons)  but  all  the  evidence  of  the  next  succeeding 
centuries  goes  to  show  that  this  was  the  general 
understanding  of  the  early  Church,  and  that  even 
after  the  duties  of  the  Presiding  Elder  had  become 
more  pronounced,  and  matters  of  government  and 
ordination  more  and  more  left  to  his  care  and  direc- 
tion, as  a  matter  of  economy,  the  fact  that  these 
powers  were  merely  delegated  by  the  sovereign  Pres- 
bytery, that  his  was  a  mere  function  or  Ofice  of  that 
Order,  and  not  an  independent  Order  in  itself,  was 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       239 

never  forgotten.  In  short,  the  present  idea  of  the 
Episcopate  is  the  result  only  of  a  long  process  of 
evolution,  and  it  is  only  within  a  comparatively 
recent  period  that  the  identity  of  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter in  point  of  Order,  with  its  necessary  corollary, 
the  inherent  power  of  Presbyters  to  ordain,  has 
become  so  obscured,  that  it  has  even  been  forgotten 
in  some  quarters.  Yet,  as  we  have  already  said,  if 
even  so  prejudiced  a  writer  as  Blunt  candidly  admits 
this — declaring  that  "it  was  not  until  the  close  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century  that  the  distinction  between  the 
Orders  of  Bishops  and  Priests  was  asserted,"  how 
can  "Catholics"  maintain  that  this  "distinction" 
was  of  Apostolic  origin,  and  universally  admitted 
by  the  early  Church,  or  wherein  is  our  position  in- 
credible ?  ^ 

But  while  it  is  hardly  fair  for  our  good  "Catholic " 
friends  to  dispute  the  words  of  an  authority  so 
weighty  with  them,  yet  for  the  sake  of  argument  we 
will  nevertheless  proceed  to  give  a  summary  (neces- 
sarily brief)  of  the  evidence  supporting  this  conclu- 
sion. In  doing  so,  we  wish  particularly  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  even  the  Ignatian  Epistles, 
upon  which  the  advocates  of  exclusive  Episcopacy 
are  prone  to  lay  so  much  stress,  with  all  the  emphasis 
which  they  undoubtedly  place  upon  the  Office  of 

'  So  also,  the  Rev.  Wm.  Maskell  tells  us:  "The  balance  of  author- 
ity, even  from  the  earliest  ages,  certainly  inclines  to  consider  the 
Episcopate,  as  an  Order,  to  be  identical  with  the  Priesthood,  but  the 
completion  of  it "  {Mon.  Rit.,  vol.  in.,  Ixxxii,  et.  seq.).  We  believe 
Mr.  Maskell  is  one  of  the  foremost  authorities  with  High  Churchmen 
generally. 


240       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Bishop,  give  absolutely  no  evidence  of  an  Episcopal 
Order,  governing  and  ordaining  without  the  assistance 
of  the  Presbyterate,  the  whole  point  to  be  proved, 
whereas  they,  indirectly,  and  much  contemporary 
literature,  directly,  confirm  the  opinion  that  the 
two  were  identical  in  point  of  Order. 

A.D.  90  TO  A.D.  200 

Clemens  Romanus.  (30-100?)  {Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, 95-97?)  Bishops  and  Presbyters  identi- 
fied as  one  and  the  same  Order.  Author  clearly 
states  that  the  Apostles  appointed  only  ''Bishops 
and  Deacons,"  but  calls  the  former  "Bishops" 
or  "Presbyters"  indifferently. 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  (95-105.)  Refers 
only  to  the  two  Orders  of  Bishops  or  Elders,  and 
Deacons.  "Appoint  for  yourselves,  therefore. 
Bishops  and  Deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord.  "^ 

Ignatian  Epistles.  (107-116.)  We  refer  here  only 
to  the  seven  "genuine"  epistles,  so-called,  for  all 
the  others  ascribed  to  Ignatius  are  now  uni- 
versally acknowledged  to  be  spurious.  The 
emphasis  here  placed  upon  the  Office  of  Bishop  is 
marked,  but,  as  we  have  said  before,  there  is 
nothing    to    indicate    that    the    Bishopric    was 

'  Note.  The  travelling  missionaries  mentioned  in  this  document 
and  termed  "Apostles,"  were,  like  the  Prophets  and  Teachers 
also  spoken  of,  no  part  of  the  permanent  organization  of  the 
Ministry,  and  had  no  connection  with  the  Apostles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  their  supposed  successors,  the  Presidents  of  the  Assemblies. 
There  are  abundant  references  to  such  "apostles"  both  in  the  New 
Testament  and  the  early  fathers. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       241 

regarded  as  a  separate  Order,  governing  and 
ordaining  independently  of  the  Presbyterate, 
but  much  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Thus, 
(i)  Ephesians.  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Dea- 
cons, all  mentioned,  and  the  first  prominently, 
but  the  government  of  the  Church  is  in  hands  of 
Bishop  and  Presbytery  conjointly.  "It  is,  there- 
fore meet  for  you  in  every  way  to  glorify  Jesus 
Christ  who  glorified  you;  that  .  .  .  submitting 
yourselves  to  your  Bishop  and  Presbytery,  ye 
may  be  sanctified  in  all  things."  "Obey  the 
Bishop  and  Presbytery  without  distraction  of 
mind.  "    No  references  to  Ordination. 

(2)  Magnesians.  Like  the  former  epistle,  af- 
fords evidence  that  the  Church  here  was 
governed  by  a  Bishop  in  conjunction  with  the 
Presbyters — no  evidence  of  a  separate  Order. 
"Neither  do  ye  anything  without  the  Bishop 
and  the  Presbyters.''  No  references  to  Ordina- 
tion. 

(3)  Trallians.  Evidence  substantially  the  same 
as  in  preceding  Epistles  with  regard  to  Bishops 
and  Presbyters;  but  note,  Ignatius  refers  to 
himself  as  not  possessing  the  authority  of  an 
Apostle,  thus  implying  that  he  did  7wt  regard 
himself  as  a  Successor  of  the  Apostle.  This  is 
fatal  to  the  "Catholic"  view,  and  in  line  with  all 
the  other  evidence  that  the  original  Bishops 
succeeded  to  the  Apostles  only  in  so  far  as  the 
Apostles  were  the  Presiding  Elders,  and  not  to 
any  exclusive  powers  and  prerogatives  of  an 

16 


242       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Apostolate  per  se,  which  before  the  organization  of 
Churches  they  may  have  been  compelled  to 
exercise.  ^ 

(4)  Romans.  No  evidence  afforded  as  to  consti- 
tution of  the  Ministry.  Again  asserts  that  he  is 
not  an  Apostle.  "I  do  not  enjoin  you,  as  Peter 
and  Paul  did.  They  were  Apostles,  I  am  a 
convict ;  they  were  free,  but  I  am  a  slave  to  this 
very  hour." 

(5)  Philadelphians.  Evidence  substantially  the 
same  as  to  constitution  of  the  Ministry.  It  is 
noteworthy,  however,  that  he  distinctly  asserts 
that  ''the  Apostles  are  the  Presbytery  of  the 
Church." 

(6)  SmyrncBans.  Necessity  of  being  at  unity  with 
the  Bishop  as  the  head  of  the  governing  Pres- 
bytery and  of  the  Church  emphasized,  but  still 
no  evidence  to  prove  that  he  either  governed  or 
ordained  independently.  Like  language  might 
be  applied  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to- 
day, as  the  governing  head  of  the  Church  of 
England,  without  necessitating  the  conclusion 

» What  we  mean  to  say  is  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
Apostolate  per  se  was  ever  intended  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  Church. 
As  the  founders  or  organizers  of  the  Church,  they  (the  Apostles) 
necessarily  had  work  to  do,  and  functions  to  perform  which  were  in 
themselves  unique;  but  once  the  Church  was  established  and  a 
definite  Ministry  organized,  there  is  nothing  to  warrant  the  assump- 
tion that  they  continued  to  exercise  these  peculiar  functions,  and  did 
not,  on  the  contrary,  identify  themselves  with  the  highest  Order 
of  that  Ministry  they  had  established — occupying  nothing  more  than 
a  mere  OJice  of  Presidency  therein,  to  which,  in  time,  others  suc- 
ceeded 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       243 

that  an  Archbishop  belongs  to  a  higher  Order 
in  the  Ministry  than  a  Bishop 
(7)     Epis.  to  Polycarp.     What  evidence  there  is 
substantially  the  same  as  above,  but  less  stress 
laid  upon  the  subject  than  in  the  former  Epistles. 

Note.  The  extreme  emphasis  placed  in  all  the  above  Ignatian 
Epistles  upon  the  importance  of  the  Bishopric  is  suggestive  of  the 
possibility  that  it  may  have  occupied  the  position  assigned  to  it  by 
"Catholics,"  but  when  we  have  said  this,  we  have  said  everything. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  above  to  prove  their  theory,  and, 
on  the  contrary,  much  to  render  it  questionable  for  the  same  praise 
or  eulogy  can  be,  and  has  often  been,  accorded  to  Archbishops  and 
Primates,  without  compelling  the  conclusion  that  their  respective 
offices  were  really  Orders.  Moreover,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
both  the  evidence  of  antecedent  and  contemporary  literature  is 
distinctly  against  the  "Catholic"  and  in  favor  of  the  Protestant 
interpretation. 

Finally,  while  we  would  not  be  so  presumptuous  as  to  deny  the 
authenticity  of  the  above  Seven  Epistles,  which  has  been  vouched 
for  by  no  less  an  authority  than  Lightfoot,  yet  we  must  nevertheless 
remind  our  readers  that  (in  the  words  of  a  well-known  editor  of  the 
Bame)  "the  Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius  have  given  rise  to  more  con- 
troversy than  any  other  documents  connected  with  the  primitive  Church. " 
Of  the  fifteen  Epistles  formerly  believed  to  have  been  written  by  him, 
no  less  than  eight  are  now  universally  rejected  as  spurious,  while  the 
remaining  seven — the  so-called  "genuine,"  which  we  have  above 
enumerated — Jiave  been  by  no  means  unanimously  accepted  by  scholars. 
Daille  (i666),Lardner  (1743),  Jortin  (1751),  Mosheim  (1755),  Gries- 
bach  (176S),  Rosenmuller  (1795),  Neander  (1826),  and  "many 
olJiers,"  either  deny  their  authenticity  altogether,  or  else  claim  that 
they  contain  many  interpolations.  Cureton  (1845)  asserts  that  all 
are  spurious  save  Epistles  to  Polycarp,  Ephesians,  Romans,  as  these 
are  the  only  ones  contained  in  the  Syriac  Version,  which  he  regards 
as  the  highest  authority.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the  very 
emphasis  which  is  placed  in  these  seven  Epistles  upon  the  importance 
of  the  Episcopate,  while,  as  we  have  said,  by  no  means  necessarily 
implying  the  conclusion  which  our  "Catholic"  friends  would  draw 
from  it,  is  in  itself  suspicious,  as  uo  other  contemporcineous  literature 


244       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Polycarp  to  the  Philippians.      (107  or  116.)     The 

opening  sentence,  * '  Polycarp,  and  the  Presbyters 
that  are  with  him,"  can  also  be  translated. 
"Polycarp,  and  those  who  with  him  are 
Presbyters."  Much  is  said  of  ''Deacons'* 
and  ''Presbyters,''  but  nothing  whatever  of 
Bishops.  Submission  to  "Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons as  to  God  and  Christ"  is  in  one  place 
enjoined,  but  nothing  said  of  obedience  to 
the  Bishop. 
Fragments  of  Papias.  (130-140.)  Apostles  dis- 
tinctly referred  to  as  Presbyters  or  Elders  but  no 
further  light  thrown  upon  the  constitution  of 
the  Ministry.  "When  a  person  came  (in  my 
way)  who  had  been  a  follower  of  the  Elders 
(xpsff^uxepot),  I  would  enquire  about  the 
discourses  of  the  Elders — what  was  said  by 
Andrew,  or  by  Peter,  or  by  Philip,  or  by  Thomas 
or  James,  or  by  John,  or  Matthew  or  any  other 
of  the  Lord's  disciples,  and  what  Aristion  and 
the  Elder  John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say" 
(or — "what    things    Aristion    and    the    Elder 

stresses  the  importance  of  the  Bishopric  either  as  an  Office  or  an  Order. 
Further,  it  is  very  significant  that  in  the  three  which  Cureton  believes 
to  be  genuine  (because  found  in  the  Syriac  Version)  all  this  emphasis 
is  wanting.  They  are  the  only  ones  of  the  seven  that  have  comparatively 
little  or  nothing  to  say  on  the  subject  of  the  Ministry.  But  while  we  are 
free  to  confess  our  own  suspicions  in  the  matter,  we  by  no  means 
desire  to  press  such  an  objection  here.  For  the  sake  of  argument, 
we  will  freely  grant  the  authenticity  of  the  above,  and  merely  assert 

that  THEY  CONTAIN  NOT  ONE  SHRED  OF  EVIDENCE  THAT  EITHER  ORDINA- 
TION OR  GOVERNMENT  WERE  THE  EXCLUSIVE  PREROGATIVE  OF 
BISHOPS — THE  WHOLE  POINT  OF  THIS  DISCUSSION. 


i 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       245 

John     (presumably     contemporaries     of     the 
author)  now  say." 
Irenaeus.     (130-202.)      (Against  Heresies,  Bk.  iii.) 
Like  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  the  passage  in 
Irenaeus    (Bk.   iii.,    ch.    3)    so   often   quoted   in 
defence  of  the  theory  of  an  exclusive  Episcopate, 
contains  absolutely  nothing  that  is  vital  to  the 
question.    In  this  work  the  author  has  much  to 
say  of  an  historic  succession  of  Bishops  in  Rome 
and  other  cities,  and  stresses  it  as  a  guarantee 
that  the  primitive  faith  of  the  Apostles  has  been 
transmitted  in  unbroken  continuity  from  the 
beginning,— but  all  this  throws  no  light  upon 
their  mode  of  appointment,   whether   (a)    they 
were  elevated  to  their  Office  hy  their  fellow  Pres- 
byters and  hence  were  of  one  and  the  same  Order 
with  them;  or  whether  (b)  they  and  they  alone 
ordained  their  successors,  as  well  as  all  the  other 
clergy,   as  a  separate  and   superior   Order,   to 
whom  alone  and  exclusively  this  power  apper- 
tained,— the  whole  point  to  he  determiiied.     Again 
we  submit  our  former  illustration:     There  has 
been  an  historic  succession  of  Archbishops  in 
England  from  the  days  of  Augustine  downward. 
Does  the  mere  recital  of  this  fact,  with  the  names 
of  the  Archbishops  in  question,  prove  that  Arch- 
bishops are  a  higher  "order"  of  the  Ministry 
than  Bishops?    But  this  is  only  another  instance 
of  the  confusion  in  the  popular  mind  between  the 
simple  fact  of  an  ''Historic  Episcopate''  (which 
few  would  question,  and  for  which  this  Church 


246       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

undoubtedly  stands^)  and  a  certain  theory  about 
that  "Historic  Episcopate"  (the  "Catholic" 
theory  of  "Apostolic  Succession")  which  main- 
tains that  it  is  the  exclusive  channel  through 
which  Divine  Authority  has  descended — the 
Historic  Preshyterate  (which  is  no  less  a  fact)  pos- 
sessing no  such  Divine  Authority  in  itself.  Not 
only  does  the  passage  in  question  fail  to  sub- 
stantiate the  "Catholic"  theory,  but  a  more 
critical  examination  of  the  writings  of  Irenaeus 
establishes,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that 
he  believed  the  Episcopate  and  Presbyterate  to 
be  one  and  the  same  Order.  This  fact  is  brought 
out  clearly  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christian  Anti- 
quities (Smith-Cheetham)  as  follows:  "It  may 
be  admitted  that  Bishops  existed  as  Church 
officers  without  also  admitting  that  they  occupied 
in  relation  to  the  Presbyterate  the  same  position 
which  they  occupied  afterwards.  Irenasus,  for 
example,  was  cognizant  of  the  distinction,  but 
(a)  in  using  ' successiones  presbyterorum,'  3,  2,  2, 
and  'successiones  episcoporum,'  3,  3,  2,  as 
convertible  terms;  (b)  in  speaking  of  the  office  of 
'Presbyteri'  as  'episcopatus/  4,  26,  2;  (c)  in 
applying  the  tou<;  sxta/coxouq  of  Isaiah,  60,  17, 
to  xpea^urlpouc;,  4,  26,  5,  he  clearly  implies  that 
there  was  no  essential  difference  of  function 
between  them''  {Id.,  Art.  "Priest,"  vol.  ii.,  p. 
1703).  Not  only,  therefore,  do  we  deny  that 
the  passage  so  often  quoted  by  High  Churchmen 

»  See  4th  Article  of  Lambeth  Quadrilateral. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       247 

upholds  their  theory  of  the  Episcopate,  but  we 
maintain  that  IrencBus  distinctly  identifies  Bishops 
and  Presbyters  as  belonging  to  the  same  Order. 
Palmer  also  admits  that  this  is  the  testimony  of 
Irena^us  (see  quotation,  Browne,  Thirty-Nine 
Articles,  p.  563). 

Clemens  Alexandrinus.  (150-220?)  Also  main- 
tained that  they  belonged  to  the  same  Order,  ac- 
cording to  Palmer  {Id.). 

TertuUian.  (160-240.)  This  writer  also,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  Palmer  (same  as  above), 
maintained  an  identity  oj  Order.  As  an  actual 
matter  of  fact,  however,  he  went  much  further, 
taking  the  position  that  the  original  source  of 
power  was  in  the  body  of  the  Church  {i.  e.,  the 
people) — hence  that  they  could  institute  what 
Orders  they  pleased,  and  authorize  any  they 
would  to  ordain. 

A.D.   200  TO  300 

Canons  of  Hippolytus.      (H.  died  c.  230?)     These 

Canons  throw  still  more  valuable  light  upon  the 
subject,  inasmuch  as  they  bear  out  our  assertion 
that  the  present  custom  of  ordination  by  the 
Bishop  alo?te,  was  the  result  of  a  voluntary 
delegation  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  Order  of 
Presbyter-Bishops  to  their  presiding  head  to  act 
for  them.  Thus,  while  it  is  enacted  in  these 
Canons  (Sec.  32)  that  the  power  of  ordination  is 
denied   Presbyters,    yet   that   this   was   only   a 


248       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

voluntary  restriction  for  economic  considerations 
purely,  and  had  no  reference  to  any  surrender 
of  inherent  power,  is  clearly  evidenced  from  the 
fact  that  when  a  Bishop  himself  is  to  be  ap- 
pointed, it  is  ordered  that  "one  shall  be  chosen 
from  among  the  Bishops  and  Presbyters^'  to 
administer  the  rite  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  so 
revealing  the  original  identity  of  the  two,  and 
further  explaining,  indirectly,  the  statements  of 
Jerome  and  others  (to  be  noted  shortly)  respect- 
ing the  usage  of  the  Church  in  Alexandria,  that 
Bishops  were  elevated  to  Office  by  the  Presbyters. 
The  Canon  relating  to  this  reads:  "Deinde 
eligatur  unus  ex  episcopis  et  presbyteris,  qui 
manum  capiti  ejus  imponat  et  oret,  dicens,"  etc. 
These  Canons,  therefore,  clearly  imply  identity 
of  Order,  and  the  inherent  power  of  Presbyters  to 
ordain — the  issue  before  us. 

Firmilian.  (D.  266.)  On  the  authority  of  Palmer, 
this  well-known  Bishop  of  C^sarea  in  Cappa- 
docia,  must  be  ranked  among  those  who  held 
the  identity  of  Order  (cited  Browne,  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles,  p.  563). 

The  Church  of  Alexandria.  The  most  important 
testimony  of  all,  comes  from  this  Church,  perhaps 
THE  most  important  centre  of  Christian  life  and 
influence  during  the  first  few  centuries,  and  which 
through  all  this  period,  or  for  TWO  HUNDRED 
YEARS,  regularly  practiced  PRESBYTERIAN 
ORDINATION,  the  Bishops  of  that  See  being 
ELEVATED  to  office  through  the  laying  on  of  the 


I 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       249 

Jmnds  oj  the  Presbytery.  The  evidence  for  this 
presented  by  Jerome,  Hilary  or  Ambrose,  Severus, 
Eiitychius  {himself  a  Bishop  oj  Alexafidria) ,  and 
many  later  writers  is  so  overwhelming,  tlmt  the 
recent  attempts  oj  Canon  Gore  and  a  jew  other 
High  Churchmen  to  discredit  it,  or  place  a  different 
interpretation  upon  it  {e.  g.,  "that  it  is  the  witness 
oj  Jerome  in  a  temper,  "  that  Eutychius  lived  long 
ajter  and  was  not  well  injormed — that  perhaps  the 
real  meaning  is  that  they  ''elected''  their  Bishop 
only,  not  that  they  really  ordained  him,  etc.)  seem 
hardly  worthy  oj  serious  consideration.  The  words 
oj  these  men  are  too  obvious,  and  the  interpretation 
placed  upon  them  by  centuries  oj  criticism  too 
unanimous,  to  justijy  such  objections.  Ij  the 
words  oj  the  great  Church  Father  be  "the  witness  oj 
Jerome  in  a  temper, "  the  criticism  thereon  appears 
to  be  no  less  the  explanation  oj  Canon  Gore  in  an 
embarrassing  position.  That  both  Jerome  and 
Eutychius  intended  to  say  that  Presbyters  of 
the  Church  in  Alexandria  were  accustomed  to 
ordain  their  own  Bishop,  and  that  this  was  a 
regular  custom  for  two  hundred  years  or  more, 
is  a  fact  so  obvious  to  the  unbiassed  reader,  and 
so  generally  admitted  by  critics  to-day  (and,  in 
fact,  has  been  so  generally  admitted  from  the 
very  beginning)  that  little  more  need  be  said  on 
the  subject. 
Novatus.  (C.  250.)  Though  a  Presbyter  only  he 
ordained  Felicissimiis  a  Deacon,  and  though  the 
act  was  bitterly  censured  by  his  Bishop,  Cyprian, 


250       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

because  done  without  his  knowledge  and  consent, 
the  actual  VALIDITY  of  the  ordination  was 
never  called  in  question  by  Cyprian  (who  left 
no  stone  unturned  in  his  controversy  with 
Novatus)  but  on  the  contrary  WAS  recognized 
BY  HIM.  Even  Blunt  admits  this  fact:  "He 
{Cyprian)  allowed  Felicissimus  to  remain  in  office" 
{Diet.  Sects,  Heresies,  etc.,  Art.  "Novatians," 
note,  p.  383).^  Again,  we  read:  "His  (Cyp- 
rian's) quarrel  with  Novatian  was  based  to  a 
great  extent  upon  the  fact  that  the  latter, 
though  only  a  Presbyter,  had  ignored  Cyprian's 
claims  as  Bishop  by  ordaining  Felicissimus  as 
Deacon,  Ep.  49  (52);  Felicissimum  satellitem 
suum  diaconum  nee  permittente  me  nee  sciente 
sua  factione  et  amhitione  constituit"'  {Diet. 
Chris.  Antiq.,  Art.  "Priest,"  p.  1703). 

A.D.  300  TO  400. 

Council  of  Ancyra.  (314.)  The  13th  Canon  of  this 
Council  by  prohibiting  Presbyters  to  ordain 
"without  the  permission  of  the  Bishop  in  writing,'' 
clearly  betrays  two  things,  (a)  That  Presbyters 
had  performed  such  ordinations  previously,  and 
(b)  That  they  were  even  now  not  to  be  considered 

'  See  also  testimony  of  Hatch  to  same  effect:  "It  is  to  be  noted 
that  Cyprian  does  not  question  the  validity  of  the  appointment,  although 
he  strongly  objects  to  its  having  been  made  without  his  knowledge" 
(Organ.  Early  Chr.  Churches,  p.  no). 

» Of  his  own  will  and  ambition,  he  ordained  Felicissimus,  his 
satellite,  a  Deacon.  I  neither  consenting  to  it  nor  knowing  of  it. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       251 

illegal,  provided  only  they  had  the  consent  of  the 
Bishop.  In  short,  the  Canon  was  not  directed 
against  the  validity  of  such  ordinations,  but 
against  the  expediency  of  performing  them 
apart  from  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Bishop, 
as  tending  to  overthrow  order,  unity,  and 
authority  in  the  Church.  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
it  was  just  such  an  act  as  this  that  Cyprian 
complained  of  in  the  case  of  the  ordination  of 
Felicissimus  by  Novatus.  He  did  not  deny  the 
validity  of  this  Presbyterian  ordination  (for  he 
allowed  Felicissimus  to  remain  in  office),  but  he 
complained  that  it  was  done  without  his  knowl- 
edge and  consent  {''nee  permittente  me  nee 
sciente'').  The  Canon  in  question  reads  as 
follows:  "The  Chorepiscopi  are  not  to  be 
allowed  to  ordain  Presbyters  or  Deacons,  nor  the 
Presbyters  of  a  City,  without  the  permission  of  the 
Bishop  in  writing,  in  another  Parish"  (Canon 
XIII.) /  Says  Prof.  Fisher,  "Gradually  in  the 
Church,  Ordination  came  to  be  the  peculiar 
prerogative  of  the  Bishop;  but  as  late  as  the 
Council  of  Ancyra  (a.d.  314),  we  find  by  the  13th 
Canon,  tJmt  Presbyters,  with  the  Bishop's  consent, 

»  The  reference  here  to  the  "  C/jore/n5co/>i "  ordaining  brings  up 
another  interesting  point,  for  while  the  matter  has  never  been 
definitely  settled  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  these  were  orig- 
inally nothing  more  than  Presbyters,  and  that,  as  such,  they  ordained 
and  their  ordinations  were  regarded  valid.  As  in  the  case  of  these 
City  Presbyters  this  privilege  was  in  time  withdrawn  for  motives  of 
expediency  only.  For  a  list  of  those  who  hold  this  view,  see  Bing- 
ham's Antiquities. 


252       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

may  still  ordain"  (Begin.  Christ.,  pp.  551  et 
seq.). 

Epiphanius.  (310-403.)  Is  said  to  have  asserted 
the  essential  equality  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter 
(see  Hatch,  Organ.  Early  Chr.  Churches,  pp. 
109,  no). 

Hilary  the  Deacon.  (Ambrose?)  (4th  Century.) 
Commenting  on  Ephesians  iv.,  2,  this  author 
writes  as  follows:  "The  Apostle  calls  Timothy, 
created  by  him  a  Presbyter,  a  Bishop  {for  the  first 
Presbyters  were  called  Bishops),  that  when  he 
departed  the  one  next  to  him  might  succeed  him. 
Moreover,  in  Egypt  the  Presbyters  (consignant) 
confirm  {or  establish) ,  ii  a  Bishop  be  not  present." 
This  witnesses  the  writer's  belief  in  the  original 
identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  evi- 
dently, in  its  allusion  to  the  custom  "in  Egypt, " 
refers  to  the  Presbyterian  ordinations  attested 
by  Jerome,  Eutychius,  and  others  which  will  be 
cited  presently. 

Ambrose.  (340-397.)  "  Episcopi  et  Presbyteri  una 
ordinatio  est;  uterque  enim  sacerdos  est,  sed  epis- 
copus  primus  est"^  (Op.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  395;  cited  in 
Die.  Chr.  Antiq.,  Art.  "Priest,"  p.  1703) — clear 
evidence  that  he  regarded  them  as  differing  in 
Office  only,  not  in  Order. 

*  "There  is  but  one  Ordination  of  a  Bishop  and  of  a  Presbyter,  for 
each  of  them  is  a  Priest,  but  the  Bishop  is  (or  ranks)  first."  His 
meaning  is  precisely  parallel  to  what  might  be  said  of  Bishops 
and  Archbishops  to-day — viz:  "There  is  but  one  Consecration  of  an 
Archbishop  and  of  a  Bishop  (for  each  of  them  is  a  Bishop),  but  the 
Archbishop  is  (or  ranks)  first." 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       253 

Jerome.  (340-420.)  The  words  of  this  author 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  circumstances 
under  which  they  were  written,  appear  so  con- 
clusive both  in  regard  to  his  behef  in  the  original 
identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  the 
purely  practical  motives  that  led  to  a  later 
attempt  to  differentiate  the  two,  that  it  is 
exceedingly  difficult  to  understand  how  any  one 
can  seriously  question  the  plain  common-sense 
purport  of  his  statement.  It  seems  that  the 
occasion  for  this  utterance  was  the  attempt  on 
the  part  of  a  certain  Deacon  to  extol  the  impor- 
tance of  his  office  at  the  expense  of  the  Priest- 
hood. He  writes:  ^^ Audio  quendam  in  tantam 
enipisse  vecordiam,  ut  diaconas  presbyteris,  id  est 
episcopis,  anteferret.  Nam,  cum  apostolus  per- 
spiciie  doceat  eosdem  esse  preshyteros  qiios  episco- 
pos,  quid  patitur  mensarum  et  viduarum  minis- 
ter, ut  supra  eos,  se  tumidus  efferat."^    Having 

* "  I  hear  that  a  certain  man  into  so  great  madness  hath  broken 
forth  that  he  would  place  Deacons  above  Presbyters — that  is  to  say, 
above  Bishops.  For  since  the  Apostle  clearly  teaches  that  Pres- 
byters and  Bishops  are  the  same,  how  can  it  be  allowed  that  a  mere 
Minister  of  tables  and  of  widows  should  behave  himself  so  haughtily 
as  to  presume  to  be  superior  to  these."  This  reference  to  Acts  vi., 
1-7,  is  further  significant,  as  it  reveals  that  Jerome  regarded  Apostles, 
Bishops,  and  Presbyters — all  three  as  belonging  to  one  and  the  same 
Order.  It  was  to  relieve  the  Apostles  from  "serving  tables"  and  pro- 
viding for  "the  Widows"  that  Deacons  were  appointed.  Yet 
Jerome  uses  the  argument  to  prove  the  subordination  of  Deacons  to 
Presbyters  and  Bishops.  He  must  needs  have  regarded  all  three, 
therefore,  as  belonging  to  the  same  Order — a  fact  corroborated  by  the 
statement  of  the  Apostles  themselves  that  they  were  Elders 
or  Presbyters,  as  already  pointed  out. 


254       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

plainly  set  forth  this  primitive  identity  of  Pres- 
byters and  Bishops,  he  later  goes  on  to  say, — ■ 
"But  that  AFTERWARDS  one  was  chosen  to  be 
over  the  rest;  this  was  done  to  prevent  schism,  lest 
each  one  drawing  the  Church  after  him  should 
break  it  up.  For  at  A lexandria  also ,  from  Mark  the 
Evangelist  to  the  Bishops  Heracles  and  Dionysius^ 
the  Presbyters  always  called  one  elected  among 
themselves,  and  placed  in  a  higher  rank,  their 
Bishop;  just  as  an  army  may  constitute  its  general, 
or  Deacons  may  elect  one  of  themselves,  whom  they 
know  to  be  diligent,  and  call  him  Archdeacon.  For 
what  does  a  Bishop  do,  with  the  exception  of  ordi- 
nation, which  a  Presbyter  may  not  do?''  (Epis.  to 
Evangelus.)  Moreover,  that  this  was  unques- 
tionably his  meaning,  and  that  he  never  regarded 
the  existing  superiority  of  Bishops  in  his  own 
day,  and  their  privilege  of  exclusive  ordination, 
as  any  thing  more  than  a  dignity  conferred 
upon,  and  a  power  delegated  to,  them  by  the 
Presbyterate  itself,  is  still  further  evident  from 
another  statement  elsewhere.  Thus,  in  his 
Commentary  on  Titus  i.,  5,  he  says:  "As  the 
Presbyters,  therefore,  know  that  they  are 
subject  by  the  custom  of  the  Church  to  him  who 
is  placed  over  them,  so  let  Bishops  know  that  they 
are  greater  than  Presbyters  MORE  B  Y  CUSTOM 
THAN  BY  ANY  REAL  APPOINTMENT 
OF  THE  LORD,  and  that  they  ought  to  govern  the 
Church  ALONG  WITH  THE  PRESBYTERS.'' 
The  best  way  to  answer  those  whose  imagina- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       255 

tions  are  sufficiently  fertile  to  construe  these 
words  into  a  defence  of  the  "Catholic"  theory 
of  the  Episcopate,  is  to  ask  if  they  would  have 
been  thus  construed,  if  they  had  been  written  at  the 
present  day. 
Culdees  of  Scot  and.  (363-430.)  The  Culdees  or 
Priests  of  the  early  Church  of  Scotland  for  a 
long  period  followed  the  custom  of  the  Church 
at  Alexandria  ordaining,  through  election  and 
elevation  to  office  their  own  Bishop.  This  fact, 
attested  by  Boethius  and  others,  there  is  little 
reason  to  question.  "The  same  Boeth  out  of 
ancient  annals,  reports  that  these  Priests  were 
wont  for  their  better  government  to  elect  some 
one  of  their  number,  by  common  suffrage,  to  be 
chief  and  principal  among  them,  without  whose 
knowledge  and  consent  nothing  was  done  in  any 
matter  of  importance;  and  that  the  person  so 
elected  was  called  Scotorum  Episcopus,  a  Scottish 
Bishop,  or  a  Bishop  of  Scotland.  Neither  had 
our  Bishops  any  other  title  whereby  they  were 
distinguished  before  the  days  of  Malcolm  the 
Third,"  etc.  (Spottiswoode,  Hist.  Ch.  Scot., 
vol.  i.,  pp.  6,  7.) 

"Neither  is  it  any  ways  sufficient  to  say  that 
those  Presbyters  did  derive  their  authority  from 
Bishops;  for,  however,  we  see  here  a  Church 
governed  without  such,  or  if  they  had  any,  they 
were  only  chosen  from  their  Culdei,  much  after 
the  custom  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  as 
Hector   Boethius   doth   imply."      (Stillingfleet, 


256       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Irenicum,  p.  398.  See  also  Carricks,  WycUffe 
and  the  Lollards,  pp.  37,  38.) 

Aerius.  (c.  363.)  "He  maintained  that,  {jure 
divino)  by  Divine  appointment,  there  was  710 
difference  between  Bishops  and  Presbyters.''^ 
(Mosheim,  Institutes  Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  i.,  p. 
326.) 

Paphnutius.  (c.  370.)  **  Ordination  by  other  than 
a  Bishop  has  been  allowed  in  cases  where  a 
Bishop  was  not  available:  e.  g.  in  the  solitudes 
of  Egypt  a  Presbyter,  Paphnutius,  ordained  a 
monk,  Daniel,  as  successively  Deacon  and 
Priest  (Cassian.  CoUat.  4.1,  ap.  Migne,  Patrol. 
Lat.,  vol.  xlix.,  585:"  Hatch,  Organ.  Early  Chr. 
Churches,  p.  no.) 

Chrysostom.  (347-407.)  Is  said  to  have  held  the 
identity  of  Presbyter  and  Bishop  in  point  of 
Order.  {Vide  Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Articles, 
P-  563;  Jewel,  Defence  of  Apology,  Bk.  iii.,  439, 
et  al.  N.B. — While  the  writer  has  good  reason 
to  believe  from  circumstantial  evidence  that 
Chrysostom  did  hold  this  opinion,  he  confesses 
that  he  has  never  been  able  to  see  how  the 
passages  cited  by  the  above  mentioned  authori- 
ties can  be  regarded  as  conclusive.  He  says 
merely:  ^^ Inter  Episcopum  et  Presbyterum  in- 
terest ferme  nihil.''  (I.  Tim.,  Hom.  11,  i.  e.. 
Between  Bishop  and  Presbyter  the  difference  is 
almost  nothing.) 

Augustine.  (354-430.)  Like  Chrysostom,  Augus- 
tine also  maintained  an  identity  of  Order,  re- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       257 

garding  the  Bishop  as  merely  the  Chief  Priest: 
'^  Quid  est  .  .  .  Episcopiis,  nisi  primus  Presbyter, 
hoc  est,  siimmus  sacerdos?''^  (Op.  Quasst.  ex 
Utroq.  mixt.,  Quaest.  ci.,  Tom.  iii.;  Jewel,  Dcj.  of 
ApoL,  Bk.  iii.,  p.  439;  Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Art., 
p.  563.) 

A.D.  400  TO  500 

Pelagius  (c.  400);  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (d. 
428);  Theodoret  (390-457).  It  is  asserted  by- 
high  authorities  that  all  of  these  men  maintained 
the  primitive  identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters. 
Says  Bishop  Lightfoot,  "Chrysostom,  Pelagius, 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Theodoret,  all  ac- 
knowledge it.  Thus  in  every  one  of  the  extant 
Commentaries  on  the  Epistles  containing  the 
crucial  passages,  whether  Greek  or  Latin,  before 
the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  this  identity  is 
affirmed.     {Com.  on  Philip..,  p.  230.) 

Sedulius.  (c.  434.)  Maintained  the  identity  of 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  point  of  Order.  {Vide 
Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563;  Asserted 
also  by  Rainolds,  see  his  testimony.  Prim.  Eiren., 

P-32.) 
Boethius.     (470-524.)     See  his  testimony  in  regard 
to  Presbyterian  ordination  among  the  Culdees, 
cited  above. 

A.D.  500  TO  600 

Liberatus.     (c.  534.)      According    to    the    Roman 

«  "What  is  the  Bishop,  but  the  first  Presbyter,  that  is,  the  Chief 
(or  highest)  Priest?" 
17 


258       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

theologian,  Morinus,  the  Breviarum  of  Liberatus 
testifies  unequivocally,  not  only  to  the  Presby- 
terian ordination  of  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
but  to  the  further  fact  alleged  by  many  others, 
that  both  in  Alexandria  and  elsewhere,  the 
election  was  itself  regarded  as  the  essential  ordina- 
tion, and  was  not  followed  hy  any  Laying  on  of 
Hands.  He  writes  as  follows:  "It  clearly 
follows  from  it  (the  Breviarum)  that  for  at  least 
two  hundred  years  after  Alexander,  the  Presby- 
ters of  Alexandria,  not  the  Bishops,  elected  the 
Patriarch;  and  that  neither  the  Presbyters 
nor  the  Bishops,  nor  any  other  person,  laid 
their  hands  on  the  person  elected."  What- 
ever may  be  said  of  the  practice  in  this  par- 
ticular place,  there  is  at  least  much  evidence 
from  other  sources  to  prove  that  in  the  early 
days  of  the  Church  the  election  was  by  no 
means  invariably  followed  by  the  Laying  on 
of  Hands,  although  this  last  was  the  general 
rule.* 
Primasius.  (c.  550.)  Maintained  original  identity 
of  Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  point  of  Order 
{vide  Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563; 
Testimony  of  Rainolds,  quoted  in  Prim.  Eiren., 
P-  32.) 

'  Not  only  so,  but  even  where  this  latter  rite  has  been  preserved, 
it  has  in  many  quarters,  been  so  modified  and  tampered  with,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  how  "Catholics"  or  others  who  stress  its 
literal  importance — a  true  tactual  transmission  of  Authority  from  the 
Apostles  downward — can  be  satisfied  with  the  validity  of  the  Episco- 
pal succession  in  many  of  the  Historic  Churches,  so-called. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       259 

A.D.  600  TO  700 

Theophylact  (611-629);  Isidore  Hispalensis  (d. 
636);Bede  (673-735).  All  three  of  these 
writers  are  said  to  have  held  that  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  were  of  the  same  Order.  {Vide 
Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563;  Testi- 
mony of  Rainolds,  quoted  in  Prim.  Eiren.,  p. 
32.) 

A.D.  700  TO  800 

Alcuin.  (735-804.)  Likewise  held  the  view  that 
they  were  the  same  Order.  {Vide  Browne, 
Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563.) 

WiUehad.  (8th  C en.)  Luidger.  (d.  807.)  Accord- 
ing to  Hatch,  and  other  authorities,  both  these 
celebrated  missionaries  endorsed  and  practiced 
Presbyterian  ordination.  "The  Presbyters  who 
were  sent  as  missionaries  to  the  Teutonic  races 
in  the  eighth  century  both  ordained  Presbyters, 
and  exercised  other  Episcopal  Junctions  (Anskar. 
Vit.  St.Willehad,  c.  5,  ap.  Pertz,  M.  H.  G.  Scriptt., 
vol.  ii.,  p.  381,  'servusDei  Willehadus  per  Wig- 
modiam  {Bremen)  ecclesias  coepit  construere  ac 
Presbyteros  super  eas  or  dinar  e.' :  so  Altfrid.  Vit. 
S.  Liudger,  c.  20,  ap.  Pertz,  ibid.,  p.  411)" — i.  e, 
"Willehad,  the  servant  of  God,  began  to  estab- 
lish Churches  throughout  Wigmodia  (Bremen) 
and  to  ordain  Presbyters  over  them'' 

A.D.  800  TO  900 
S3mod  of  Aix.     (819.)     Officially  pronounced  Bishops 


260       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  Presbyters  to  he  the  same  in  point  of  Order. 
(Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563.) 
Amalarius.  (9th  Cen.)  According  to  Harrison,  this 
writer  not  only  held  that  they  were  identical  in 
point  of  Order,  but  leaves  no  room  for  doubt 
as  to  his  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Jerome 
relating  to  the  elevation  of  the  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria at  the  hands  of  his  fellow  Presbyters, 
comparing  it  to  the  similar  elevation  of  an  Arch- 
deacon by  his  brethren.  "The  consecration  of 
an  Archdeacon  is  well  known  to  us.  An  Arch- 
deacon has  the  same  consecration  as  the  others 
have,  but  by  the  election  of  his  brethren  he  is 
placed  first."  {Whose  Are  the  Fathers?  quoted 
in  Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  208.) 

A.D.  900  TO  1000 

Eutychius.  (loth  Cen.)  This  writer,  himself  a 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and,  therefore,  of  all 
others,  the  least  likely  to  depreciate  the  impor- 
tance of  his  office  or  the  honor  due  his  see,  fur- 
nishes the  most  explicit  testimony  of  all  with 
regard  to  the  ancient  custom  of  Presbyterian 
ordination,  and  his  testimony  alone  should 
forever  settle  the  meaning  of  Jerome's  words 
(above  quoted)  if  indeed  there  were  any  reason- 
able grounds  for  questioning  his  meaning.  After 
voicing  the  usual  tradition  that  St.  Mark,  the 
Evangelist  (who,  by  the  way,  was  himself  a 
PRESBYTER  only),  had  founded  the  Church 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       261 

at  Alexandria,  he  goes  on  to  relate  its  subsequent 
history  as  follows:  "He  (St.  Mark)  appointed 
twelve  Presbyters  with  Hananias  (his  Succes- 
sor), who  were  to  remain  with  the  Patriarch,  so 
that  when  the  Patriarchate  was  vacant  they 
might  elect  one  of  the  twelve  Presbyters,  upon 
whose  head  the  other  eleven  might  place  their  hands 
and  bless  him  and  create  him  Patriarch,  and  then 
choose  some  excellent  man  and  appoint  him 
Presbyter  with  themselves  in  the  place  oj  him  who 
was  thus  made  Patriarch,  that  thus  there  might 
always  be  twelve.  Nor  did  this  custom  respect- 
ing the  Presbyters,  namely,  that  they  should 
create  their  Patriarch  from  the  twelve  Presbyters, 
cease  at  Alexandria  until  the  times  of  Alexander, 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  was  of  the  number 
of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen.  But  he 
forbade  the  Presbyters  to  create  the  Patriarch 
for  the  future,  and  decreed  that  when  the  Pa- 
triarch was  dead,  the  Bishops  should  meet 
together  and  ordain  the  Patriarch.  Thus,  that 
ancient  custom,  by  which  the  Patriarch  used  to  be 
created  by  Presbyters,  disappeared,  and  in  its  place 
succeeded  the  ordinance  for  the  creation  of  the 
Patriarch  by  the  Bishops."  (Annals,  cited  in 
Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  20.)  It  would  be  hard  to  find 
any  testimony  that  could  be  more  unequivocal 
than  this, 
Severus.  (loth  Cen.)  As  quoted  by  Renaudot, 
declares  that  "the  Priests  and  people  were 
collected  together  at  Alexandria,  and  laid  their 


262       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

hands  on  Peter,  his  son  in  the  faith,  and  disciple, 
a  Priest,  and  placed  him  in  the  patriarchal 
throne  of  Alexandria,  according  to  the  command 
of  Theonas  in  the  tenth  year  of  the  Emperor 
Diocletian. " 

Oecumenius.  (loth  Cen.)  According  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Rainolds,  he  likewise  maintained  that 
Bishops  and  Priests  were  of  the  same  Order. 
{Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  32.) 

Canons  of  Aelfric.  (996-1006.)  "Seven  degrees  are 
established  in  the  Church — the  sixth  Diaconus, 
the  seventh  {i.  e.,  the  highest)  Presbyter.'^ 
(Thorpe's  Ancient  Laws  and  histitutes,  vol.  ii., 
p.  347;  quoted  by  Maskell,  Monumenta  Ritualia.) 

Note.  This  evidence  is  unequivocal.  The  writer  declares  that 
there  are  only  Seven  Orders  in  the  Church,  the  five  Minor  Orders,  so 
called,  and  the  two  Major  Orders,  viz.:  the  Diaconate  (the  sixth),  and 
the  Priesthood,  the  Seventh,  and  highest.  There  is  no  eighth  Order  of 
Episcopate.    This  is  again  confirmed  by  \he  following: 

Pastoral  of  Aelfric.  (996-1006.)  "  Beloved,  under- 
stand that  both  are  of  one  Order,  the  Bishop  and 
the  Mass-Priest,  that  is  of  the  Seventh  Church 
Order,  as  holy  books  tell  us. "     {Id.,  p.  379.) 

A.D.  1000  TO  1 100 

Anselm.  (1033-1109.)  Held  the  same  opinion, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Rainolds,  (quoted 
in  Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  32). 

A.D.   1 100  TO  1200 

Hugo  St.  Victor.  (1096-1140.)  Held  the  same  view. 
(Vide  Browne,  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563.) 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       263 

Gratian.  (1151.)  This  famous  Canonist  is  author- 
ity for  the  statement  that  the  Chorepiscopi,  who 
for  many  centuries  exercised  the  function  of 
ordination  in  the  Church,  were  not  Bishops  at  all, 
but  Presbyters,  and  the  validity  of  their  acts  was 
never  called  in  question.  According  to  Bingham, 
this  was  also  the  received  opinion  of  many 
others,  to  wit:  "Among  the  Schoolmen  and 
Canonists,  it  is  a  received  opinion,  that  they 
were  only  Presbyters;  as  may  be  seen  in  Turrian, 
Estius,  Antonius  Augustinus,  and  Gratian,  who 
are  followed  not  only  by  Salmasius,  but  by 
Spalatensis,  Dr.  Field,  and  Dr.  Forbes,  the  last 
of  which  brings  several  arguments  to  prove  that 
they  were  Presbyters,  and  never  had  any  Episcopal 
ordination.'"      (Bingham's   Antiquities,    vol.    i., 

p.  56.) 
Peter  Lombard,     (d.  1 164.)    Said  to  have  maintained 

the  identity    of    Order     (Browne,    Thirty-Nine 

Articles,  p.  563);  as  also  the 
Waldenses.     (fl.  1170.)     According  to  testimony  of 

Rainolds,  cited  above. 

A.   D.    1200  to  1300 

Albertus  Magnus.  (1205-1280.)  This  writer  is  said 
to  have  maintained  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter 
were  of  the  same  Order.     (Browne,  Id.) 

Alexander  Alensis.  (1230  ?)  Held  that  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  were  the  same  Order.  (Browne, 
Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563.) 


264       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

George  Elmacinus.  (13th  Cen.)  An  Egyptian 
writer,  confirms  the  testimony  of  Eutychius 
respecting  Presbyterian  ordination  in  Alexan- 
dria.    (See  Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  20.) 

Pope  Celestine  V.  (1215-1296.)  "He  empowered 
one  Francis  of  Apt,  a  Franciscan  Friar,  to  confer 
Priest's  Orders  on  Lodovico,  son  of  Charles, 
King  of  Sicily,  a  fact  which  seems  to  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  Bingham,  who  says  that 
such  a  thing  was  never  done. "    {Encyc.  Brit.) 

Guilielmus  Parisiensis.  (d.  1249.)  According  to 
Maskell,  this  writer  declares  that  the  Episcopate 
depends  on  the  Presbyterate,  not  the  Presby- 
terate  on  the  Episcopate:  "The  Episcopate 
presupposes  the  Priesthood,  and  depends  upon 
it.''  {Mon.  Rit.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  Ixxxiii.)  Thus,  like 
the  Revisers  of  1662  he  emphasizes  the  fact  that 
the  Episcopate  unlike  the  "Orders"  of  Presbyter 
and  Deacon  is  not  necessary  in  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

Bonaventura.  (1221-1274.)  His  testimony,  as  well 
as  that  of  his  distinguished  contemporary 
(which  immediately  follows),  is  clear  and  un- 
equivocal: "Episcopatus  prout  distinguitur 
contra  Sacerdotum,  non  est  proprie  nomen 
Ordinis,  nee  novus  character  imprimitur,  nee 
nova  potestas  datur,  sed  potestas  data  amplia- 
tur."'     (Op.,  Tom.  5.,  p.  369.) 

•  "  The  Episcopate  as  contrasted  with  the  Priesthood,  is  not  prop- 
erly the  name  of  an  Order,  nor  is  there  any  new  Character  impressed, 
nor  any  new  power  given,  but  the  power  already  bestowed  is  increased.'^ 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       265 

Thomas  Aquinas.  (1225-1274.)  He  says  distinctly, 
"Episcopatus  non  est  Ordo. "  (In.  4.  Sec.  Dist. 
24,  q.  2.  Art.  2.)  ''The  Episcopate  is  not  an 
Order." 

A.D.  1300  TO  1400 

Durandus.     (d.  1332.)    Held  that  they  were  identical 

in  Order.     (Browne,  Id.) 

Peter  Aureolus.  (d.  after  1345.)  Bishop  Cosin  de- 
clares that  he  held  the  same  opinion.  (See  his 
Letter  to  Cordel,  cited  by  Goode,  On  Orders, 
p.  66.) 

Marsiglio  of  Padua.  Among  the  several  proposi- 
tions which  he  laid  down,  and  for  which  he  was 
condemned  by  the  Pope  (John  XXH.)  was  the 
following:  "All  Priests,  whether  Pope  or  Arch- 
bishop or  simple  Priest,  are,  in  accordance  with 
the  appointment  of  Christ,  of  equal  authority  and 
jurisdiction" 

Note.  It  was  only  the  extension  of  the  principle  of  their  equality 
in  point  of  Order,  to  include  the  Pope,  that  called  forth  his  condemna- 
tion.    (See  Thatcher  and  McNeal,  Source  Book,  p.  324.) 

Wyclif.  (1324-1384.)  It  is  well  known  that  this 
great  Reformer  maintained  the  equality  of 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  point  of  Order.  "He 
believed  in  the  universal  priesthood  of  all 
believers,  the  fallibility  of  the  Pope,  the  original 
equality  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  all  Christian  Priests  of  a  simple,  humble 
life."     (Carrick,   WycUffe  and   the  Lollards,  p. 


266       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

190.)  Wyclif  also  believed  in  the  principles  of 
the  Culdees,  who  maintained  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination.  (See  above.)  "Co- 
lumban  or  Culdee  Christianity  was  what  the 
Roman  Church  displaced,  and  it  was  what 
Wycliffe  wished  revived  again."     {Id.,  p.  37.) 

The  Lollards.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  they  main- 
tained the  view  of  their  founder. 

Pupilla  Oculi.  (1385.)  In  this  work  a  recognized 
authority  in  its  day,  the  same  view  is  again  set 
forth.  "Episcopatus  autem  non  est  Ordo 
proprie  sed  dignitas,  sive  excellentia  in  ordine, 
tum  quia  non  imprimit  characterem,  tum  etiam 
quia  omnis  Ordo  ordinatur  ad  Sacramentum 
Eucharisti^. " '     (Pars  VII.,  Cap.  I.  C.) 

Manipulus  Curatorum.  ' '  De  Episcopatu  vero  utrum 
sit  spiritualis  Ordo  dubito. "  (Lib.  V.,  Cap.  II.) 
"As  to  the  Episcopate,  I  question  whether  it  be 
truly  a  Spiritual  Order y 

Huss.  (1369-1415.)  It  is  generally  admitted  that 
he  held  the  same  view.  {Vide  testimony  of 
Rainolds,  Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  32.) 

A.D.   1400  TO  1500 

Pope  Eugenius.     (1383-1447.)     "In  the  definition 

'  "Moreover,  the  Episcopate  is  not,  properly  speaking,  an  Order, 
but  a  dignity,  or  excellency  in  Order;  because  further,  it  does  not 
impress  any  character;  and  yet  again,  because  all  Order  is  designed 
for  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist. " — N.  B.  The  prevalent  mediaeval 
conception  being  that  the  prime  or  essential  reason  for  ordering  or 
setting  apart  a  class  of  ministers  above  the  Diaconate,  was  to  bestow 
upon  them  the  unique  power  of  Consecrating  the  Elements — to  perform 
the  Miracle  of  transubstantiation. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       267 

that  Eugenlus  has  given  of  the  Sacraments 
which  is  an  authentical  piece  in  the  Roman 
Church,  where  he  reckons  Priests,  Deacons,  and 
Subdeacons,  as  belonging  to  the  Sacrament  of 
Orders,  he  does  not  name  Bishops,  though  their 
being  of  Divine  institution  is  not  questioned  in 
that  Church."  (Burnet,  Thirty-Nine  Articles, 
p.  340.)  The  above  is  cited,  not  in  defense 
of  the  Roman  view  that  the  Subdiaconate 
constitutes  an  Order,  but  merely  to  show 
(as  is  verified  by  other  official  declarations 
of  that  Church,  e.  g.,  that  of  the  Council 
of  Trent)  that  the  Episcopate  was  not  at 
that  time  regarded  as  a  separate  Order  even  by 
them. 
Tostatus,  Bishop  of  Avila.  (15th  Cen.)  Held  that 
the  power  of  the  Keys  was  given  originally  to  the 
Church  (as  a  Body)  not  to  the  Ministry,  and  that 
the  former  merely  delegates  what  Orders  she  will 
to  exercise  said  power.  "For  the  power  of  a 
prelate  does  not  take  its  origin  from  itself,  but 
from  the  Church,  by  means  of  the  election  that  it 
makes  of  him.  The  Church  that  chose  him  gives 
him  that  jurisdiction,  but  as  for  the  Church,  it 
receives  it  from  nobody  after  its  having  once 
received  it  from  Jesus  Christ.  The  Church, 
therefore,  has  the  Keys  originally  and  virtually, 
and  whensoever  she  gives  them  to  a  prelate,  she 
does  not  give  them  to  him  after  the  manner  she 
has  them,  to  wit,  originally  and  virtually,  but 
she  gives  them  to  him  only  as  to  use.""     (In 


268       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

"Numer.,"  cap.  xv.,  quest.  48,  49.  Quoted 
Prim.  Eiren.,  p.  210.) 

Antonius  de  Rosellis.  (d.  1467.)  Cited  by  Bishop 
Cosin  as  one  of  those  who  held  that  Presbyters 
had  the  inherent  power  to  ordain.  (See  Goode, 
On  Orders,  p.  66.) 

15th  Century  Pontifical.  This  Pontifical  in  the 
Library  of  St.  Genevieve  at  Paris,  distinctly 
states:  ''  Episcopatus  non  est  Or  do  sed  sacerdotii 
culmen  et  apex  atque  tronus  dignitatis ^  (See 
Die.  Chr.  Antiq.,  Art.  "Orders,"  p.  1472.) 
"The  Episcopate  is  not  an  Order,  but  the  cul- 
mination and  Apex  of  the  Priesthood — even  its 
throne  of  dignity." 

Cajetan.  (1469-1534.)  Held  that  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter were  identical  in  point  of  Order.  (Browne, 
Thirty-Nine  Articles,  p.  563.) 

Pope  Innocent  VIII.  (-1489.)  "There  is  a  privi- 
lege extant,  of  Pope  Innocent  VIII.  in  1489, 
giving  to  some  Cistercian  Abbots  power  to 
ordain  to  the  Diaconate. "  (Maskell,  Mon.  Rit., 
vol.  iii.,  p.  Ixxxvii,  note.) 

A.D.    1500  TO   1600 

Malabar  Christians.  It  is  on  record  that  the  Chris- 
tians of  Malabar,  when  discovered  by  the  Portu- 
guese, knew  only  two  Orders  in  their  Ministry, 
viz.:  (i)  Bishops  or  Presbyters;  (2)  Deacons. 
They  were  later  persecuted  by  the  Roman 
missionaries,  who  accused  them  of  the  following 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       269 

practices  and  opinions:  "that  they  (the  clergy) 
had  married  wives,  that  they  owned  but  two 
Sacraments,   Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper; 
that    they    neither    invoked    Saints,    nor    wor- 
shipped images  nor  beHeved  in  Purgatory;  and 
that  they  had  no  other  Orders  or  names  of  dignity 
in  the  Church  than  Priest  and  Deacon.''     {Per- 
ranzabidoe,   by    C.    T.   C.   Trelawny,   p.   254.) 
The  above  statement  is  somewhat  exaggerated. 
The  author  does  not  really  mean  that  they  had 
no  names  of  dignity  in  the  Church,  for  (as  will 
be  seen  by  those  who  consult  the  work)   he 
himself  affirms  that  they  had  Bishops,  and  the 
fact  is  well  known.     What  he  means,  however, 
is  that  they  did  not  account  their  Bishops  as 
occupying  a  separate  Order  from  the  Priests. 
Erasmus.     (1529.)     Writes  as  follows:  "I  know  not 
how  Popes  came  by  their  authority.    I  suppose 
it  was  as  Bishops  came  by  theirs.    Each  Presby- 
tery chose  one  of  its  members  as  President  to 
prevent  divisions.     Bishops  similarly  found  it 
expedient  to  have  a  Chief  Bishop  to  check  rival- 
ries and  defend  the  Church  against  the  secular 
powers."     (Letter,  Louvain,  Jan.  28,  1529.     Cf. 
Brown,  Level  Plan,  pp.  58,  59.) 
But  we  have  now  reached  the  period  of  the  Refor- 
mation when  the  evidence  still  further  substantiating 
our  contention  becomes  too  abundant  to  be  dealt 
with  within  the  limits  of  such  a  work  as  this.    It  is, 
in  fact,  due  to  the  very  rupture  of  the  rest  of  the 
Christian  world  with  Rome  that  questions  relating 


270       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

to  the  constitution  of  the  Ministry  in  ApostoHc 
days — the  number  of  necessary  or  essential  Orders 
in  the  Church,  the  validity  of  non-episcopal  forms  of 
government,  and  Presbyterian  Ordination  now,  for 
the  first  time,  come  prominently  to  the  front.  In 
short,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  the  reform 
movement  both  on  the  Continent  and  in  England  that 
Rome  begins  to  raise  these  questions  of  valid  Minis- 
tries and  Churches,  of  the  necessity  of  an  Apostolic 
Succession  through  the  Episcopate  alone,  as  a  third 
Order  ^  (in  the  present  technical  sense)  and  the  in- 
validity even  of  this  third  Order  when  assuming  to 
be  independent  of  the  Pope.  Against  these  specious 
objections  of  Romanism  we  find  not  only  Calvin, 
Luther,  and  the  continental  Reformers  generally, 
but  all  the  Reformers  in  England  making  unanimous 
and  indignant  protest.  Even  before  the  reform 
movement  had  attained  completion  in  England, 
and  while  yet  many  Roman  corruptions  in  doctrine 
and  practice  had  not  been  eliminated,  we  find  the 
Anglican  divines  in  the  work  entitled  the  Institution 
of  a  Christian  Man  (1537)  and  A  Necessary  Doctrine 
and  Erudition  for  Any  Christian  Man  (1543)  singular- 
ly at  one  with  the  Reformers  on  the  Continent  in 
condemning  these  pretensions  of  the  Roman  Church. 

'  Note  well — It  was  because  that,  on  the  Continent  particularly,  ! 
so  few  Bishops  could  be  induced  to  join  the  reform  movement,  that 
(a)  most  of  the  Reformed  Churches  were  compelled  to  organize 
without  them,  and  (b)  Rome  saw  the  advantage  of  making  this 
lack  of  Bishops  an  issue.  The  idea  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  the 
Episcopate  to  the  being  of  the  Church  was  bom  of  this  controversy; 
and  though  a  novel  argument,  it  was  effective. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       271 

Not  only  did  they  here  (i.  e.,  in  the  above  mentioned 
works)  officially  assert,  in  no  uncertain  language,  that 
the  integrity  and  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  "is 
not  conseroed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome's  authority  or 
doctrine'''' ;  not  only  do  they  therein  define  the  essen- 
tial marks  of  the  Catholic  Church,  significantly 
omitting  this  so-called  essential,  the  Episcopal 
Succession,  but  they  further  as  clearly  and  as  em- 
phatically point  out  that  because  the  essential  bond 
does  not  consist  in  matters  of  outward  forms  and 
polity,  but  only  in  Faith  and  Doctrine;  that  all  the 
Reformed  Bodies  {which  they  mention  by  name)  are 
valid  parts  of  this  said  Catholic  Church;  that,  in 
short,  "the  Church  of  Rome,  being  but  a  several  Church 
challenging  the  name  of  catholic  above  all  other, 
doeth  great  wrong  to  all  other  churches,  and 
doeth  only  by  force  and  maintenance  support  an 
unjust  usurpation :  for  that  Church  hath  no  more  right 
to  that  name  than  the  Church  of  FRANCE,  SPAIN, 
ENGLAND,  or  PORTUGAL,  which  be  justly  called 
Catholic  Churches  in  THAT  TIIEY  DO  PROFESS, 
CONSENT,  AND  AGREE  IN  ONE  UNITY  OF 
TRUE  FAITH  WITH  OTHER  CATHOLIC 
CHURCHES. "  (A  Necessary  Doctrine,  etc..  Ninth 
Article.)  Moreover,  not  only  do  they  thus  recognize 
officially  the  non-episcopal  bodies  on  the  Continent 
as  true  branches  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  they 
further,  in  these  same  works,  effectually  settle  the 
question  as  to  what  the  attitude  of  the  Church  in 
England  then  was  (i.e.,  even  at  this  early  date — 
before  the  Reform  movement  was  completed)  on  the 


2-12       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

subject  of  the  number  of  "Orders"  originally  in- 
stituted by  the  Apostles,  by  again  affirming  (and  that, 
not  once,  but  repeatedly)  that  they  were  only  "two,  '* 
viz. :  PRIESTS  OR  BISHOPS,  and  deacons  or  minis- 
ters. [E.  g.,  "In  the  New  Testament  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in 
Orders  but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and  of 
PRIESTS  OR  bishops."  {The  Institution,  etc.,  Art. 
"  Orders.  ")]  This  clear  identification  of  Bishop  and 
Priest  as  belonging  to  one  and  the  same  order, 
and  (as  a  consequence  of  this,  to  say  nothing  of  other 
reasons)  the  recognition  of  all  Presbyterially  governed 
Churches  as  true  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church,  was 
an  undisputed  point  even  at  the  very  outset 
OF  the  reformation,  that  is  to  say,  even  when  the 
Anglican  Reformers  had  not  yet  got  their  bearings 
on  many  other  matters,  such  for  example,  as  the 
Mass,  the  Seven  Sacraments,  etc.  Is  it  then  a  matter 
of  any  surprise  that  if  before  the  Church  had  freed 
itself  from  all  the  taints  of  Romanism,  it  should  be 
absolutely  positive  about  this  question,  that  later 
on,  when  the  Reformation  was  completed,  it  should 
continue  (as  we  have  seen  that  it  did)  to  maintain  its 
attitude  unchanged  on  this  point  to  the  very  end? 
Moreover,  what  we  see  to  have  been  thus  undisputed 
from  the  very  outset,  in  England  (where  Episcopacy 
was  retained)  we,  of  course,  find  emphasized  every- 
where else.  Thus,  not  only  did  Luther,  Calvin,  and 
all  the  Continental  Reformers,  along  with  Hooper, 
Latimer,  Ridley,  Cranmer,  Jewel,  etc.,  individually, 
maintain  the  identity  of  the  Orders  of  Bishop  and 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       273 

Priest,  and  so  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  Ordination 
and  government,  but  they  proceeded,  as  we  should 
expect,  to  incorporate  these  principles  in  the  Con- 
stitutions and  Formularies  of  their  respective 
Churches.  The  identity  of  Bishop  and  Priest  was 
officially  enunciated  and  defended  in  the  Danish 
Confession  (1537),  the  Smalcald  Articles  (1537,  signed 
by  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Bugenhagen,  Jonas,  My- 
conius,  Bucer,  Fagius,  et  al.),  Confession  of  Saxony 
(1551),  of  Wittenburg  (1552),  of  Belgium  (1556),  of 
Bohemia  (1573);  in  the  second  Helvetic  Confession 
(1566)  signed  by  the  Churches  of  Geneva,  Hungary, 
Savoy,  Polonia,  Scotland,  etc.  Why  continue  to 
cite  evidence?  Blunt  himself  is  the  honest,  though 
unwilling  witness  that  this  idea  of  a  difference  of 
Order  between  Bishop  and  Presbyter  was  now  for 

THE   first    time    SERIOUSLY   ALLEGED.        He    himself 

has  told  us  that  ''it  was  not  until  the  CLOSE  of  the 
SIXTEENTH  CENTURY  that  the  DISTINCTION 
between  the  orders  of  bishop  and  priest  was 
ASSERTED,"  which  simply  means  that  before  the 

close  of  the  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY  NO  DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN     BISHOP     AND     PRIEST     WAS     RECOGNIZED. 

Hence  the  Succession  through  the  Episcopate  alone, 
was  not  deemed  necessary.  Keble  also,  another  high 
authority  with  "catholics,"  testifies,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  the  same  effect,  saying  that  it  was  "enough 
with  them  (the  Anglican  Reformers)  to  show  that  the 
government  by  Archbishops  and  Bishops  is  ancient 
and  allowable;  they  never  venture  to  urge  its 

EXCLUSIVE  CLAIM,    OR  TO   CONNECT  THE  SUCCESSION 
IS 


274       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

WITH    THE    VALIDITY    OF    THE    HOLY     SACRAMENTS " 

(precisely  the  point  at  issue)  and  adding  moreover 
that  this  fact  is  "notorious";  and  finally,  as 
corroborating  yet  further  our  own  statement  as  well 
as  that  of  Blunt,  above  cited,  that  this  was  the 
received  opinion  before  the  Reformation,  we  have  the 
statement  of  another  eminent  ' '  Catholic ' '  authority, 
the   Rev.    W.    Maskell,    that    "the   balance   of 

AUTHORITY,  EVEN  FROM  THE  EARLIEST  AGES,  CER- 
TAINLY inclines  to  consider  the  episcopate,  as 

AN  ORDER,  TO  BE  IDENTICAL  WITH  THE  PRIESTHOOD, 
BUT   THE   COMPLETION    OF    IT."    [Mon   Rit.,    vol.    iii., 

p.  Ixxxii  et  seq.)  We  are  not  saying  anything  more, 
therefore,  than  what  some  of  the  highest  "Catholic'^ 
authorities  have  themselves  asserted.  There  is 
nothing  new  or  strange  in  any  of  it.  It  is  only  that 
under  existing  conditions,  when  so  many  of  us  are 
preaching  a  contrary  doctrine,  and  seeking  to 
revolutionize  this  ancient  CATHOLIC  view,  to  be 
reminded  of  these  facts  is  embarrassing,  and  it  is,  to 
say  the  least,  not  very  polite  or  considerate  in  one  of 
our  own  clergy  to  be  telling  the  world  such  things. 
It  is  true,  of  course,  but  you  should  not  speak  of  it. 
But  to  proceed.  Not  only  was  this  the  catholic  or 
generally  received  opinion,  "from  the  earliest  ages'* 
even  till  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century/'  but,  as 
we  have  already  seen  from  evidence  that  is  incon- 
testable, the  agitation  which  now,  for  the  first  time, 
begins  to  make  itself  felt  in  certain  quarters,  never 
gains  sufficient  momentum  to  bring  about  any  doc- 
trinal change  in  the  official  teaching  of  the  Church. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       275 

Moreover,  the  cause  or  motive  for  this  agitation  is 
obvious  to  any  one  studying  the  histor}^  of  the  period. 
When  facing  only  the  persecution  of  Rome,  and 
contending  only  with  Papist  controversialists,  there 
was  never  a  thought  of  anything  else.  When, 
however,  an  enemy  within  her  own  fold  appeared,  and 
Anglican  Divines  were  forced  to  defend  themselves  from 
the  attack  of  Puritanism,  a  movement  contending 
that  Episcopacy  in  any  form  was  ''anti- Christ,''  and 
Presbyterianism  and  Presbyterianism  alone,  and 
exclusively  could  claim  Divine  Authority;  when  a 
serious  and  deliberate  attempt  was  inaugurated  to 
overthrow  the  existing  Church  of  England,  then 
human  nature  began  to  assert  itself.  By  the  ''close 
of  the  Sixteenth  Century"  it  became  apparent  that 
something  would  have  to  be  done,  if  Episcopacy  was 
to  be  retained  in  England.  The  moderate,  rational 
view  of  the  Episcopate  entertained  by  the  Anglican 
Divines  of  this  period,  and  which  was  so  ably  and 
tactfully  defended  by  "the  judicious  Hooker,"  had 
failed  to  satisfy  the  Puritans,  and  in  the  heat  of 
controversy,  a  few  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England 
began  to  take  still  higher  ground  in  defending  the 
established  Order.  What  appears  to  have  been  the 
very  first  public  expression  of  this  novel  theory  was 
the  sermon  preached  by  Bancroft  (afterwards  Arch- 
bishop) at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  wherein  he  advocated 
for  the  Episcopate,  which  hitherto,  as  we  have  seen, 
had  been  regarded  as  a  mere  office  or  function  of  the 
Presbyterate,  and  not  a  "necessary"  or  essential 
"Order"  in  itself,  a  separate  and  distinct  authority, 


276       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

divinely  bestowed  at  the  very  beginning.  Mark — 
this  was  the  whole  extent  to  which  he  ventured. 
Hitherto,  the  Episcopate,  though  not  "nece55ar3'  •  •  • 
in  the  Church  of  Christ"  (Hke  the  Presbyterate  and 
Diaconate,  see  Rubrics  in  the  Ordinal),  was  unques- 
tionably "allowable''  (see  Keble,  cited  above), 
justifiable,  and  of  Divine  Authority,  the  Puritans  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Now,  it  was  more 
than  this.  It  was  just  as  "necessary  ...  in  the 
Church  of  Christ"  as  the  Presbyterate  and  Diaconate. 
Thus,  while  he  made  it  a  third  Order,  as  necessary  as 
either  of  the  others,  he  did  not  presume  to  go  so  far 
as  to  say,  on  the  other  hand,  that  government  and 
ordination  by  Presbyters,  was  not  allowable,  or 
VALID.  This  is  proved  by  the  action  which,  as  Arch- 
bishop, he  officially  took  a  few  years  later,  at  the 
Consecration  of  the  Scottish  Bishops.  But  even  this 
was  going  beyond  the  official  attitude  of  the  Churchy 
and  the  almost  universal  opinion  of  his  fellow  divines. 
Says  Neale : ' '  This  was  new  and  strange  doctrine  to  the 
Churchmen  of  these  times.  It  had  been  always  said 
that  the  superiority  of  the  Order  of  Bishops  above 
Presbyters,  had  been  a  politic  human  appointment, 
for  the  more  orderly  government  of  the  Church 
begun  about  the  third  or  fourth  Century,  but  Ban- 
croft was  one  of  the  first,  who  by  the  Archbishop's 
directors,  advanced  it  into  a  Divine  Right.  .  .  . 
Whitgift  said,  the  Doctor's  Sermon  had  done  much 

good,    THOUGH     HE    HIMSELF    RATHER    WISHED    THAN 
BELIEVED  IT  TO  BE    TRUE :    IT  WAS  NEW  DOCTRINE  AT 

THIS  TIME."      (Neale's  Hist.  Puritans,  vol.  i.,  pp. 


I 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       277 

262,  263.)  While  in  our  opinion,  the  above  state- 
ment is  somewhat  misleading,  being  a  statement  of 
the  matter  from  the  Puritan  point  of  view,  yet  after 
due  allowance  is  made  for  this,  it  still  portrays  the 
gist  of  the  Anglican  position  at  that  time.  This  idea 
of  the  Episcopate  as  a  separate  "Order"  (in  modem 
sense)  from  the  Presbyterate  was,  indeed,  novel  and 
strange  to  the  Churchmen  of  that  day,  and  despite 
the  fact  that  many,  because  of  the  aggressiveness  of 
the  Puritans,  doubtless  "wished,"  with  the  Arch- 
bishop, that  it  were  true,  few — very  few — could  follow 
Dr.  Bancroft  in  asserting  that  it  was  true.  They 
knew  only  too  well,  that  the  generally  received 
opinion  of  the  entire  Church  from  the  very  earliest 
ages  downward  was  totally  opposed  to  this.  The 
actual  triumph  of  Presbyterianism  and  temporary 
overthrow  of  Episcopacy  within  the  next  century, 
however,  unquestionably  tempted  many  to  make  the 
most  of  these  novel  pretensions.  When  it  was  per- 
ceived that  the  crisis  was  inevitable.  Laud  deter- 
mined to  meet  arrogance  with  arrogance.  He  put 
forth  the  jure  divino  theory  of  the  Episcopate  in  no 
uncertain  language ;  in  the  fervor  of  his  zeal  to  main- 
tain the  established  order,  he  even  went  so  far  as  to 
make  the  astounding  assertion  "nullus  episcopus, 
nulla  ecdesia.''  After  all,  this  was  a  mere  private 
OPINION  (not  an  official  declaration  of  his  Church) 
and  one,  moreover,  for  which  he  was  censured  by  high 
authority  within  the  Church  itself,  and  which  he  sub- 
sequently took  the  PAINS  TO  EXPLAIN  WAS  NOT 
INTENDED  BY  HIM  TO  SIGNIFY  THAT   THERE  WERE  NO 


278       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

VALID  CHURCHES  AMONG  THE  REMAINING  PROTES- 
TANT BODIES.  (The  very  thing  "Catholics"  are 
assuming  to-day.)  Like  Bancroft  before  him,  who 
despite  his  extreme  views,  maintained,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  Presbyterian  Ordination  was  valid  (when 
about  to  Consecrate  the  Scottish  Bishops),  so  Laud 
also  answered  his  critics  by  saying  that  he  only 
meant  that  "none  but  a  Bishop  can  ordain,  except 

IN   CASES   OF   INEVITABLE   NECESSITY."        He   further 

illustrates  his  position  as  regards  the  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists  by  distinctly  adding:  "nor  have  i  ab- 
solutely UNCHURCHED  THEM."  But  in  spite  of  this 
evident  tendency,  now  manifest  throughout  the 
troublous  period  of  the  Seventeenth  Century,  to  offset 
the  prentensions  of  the  Puritans  by  resorting  to 
claims  equally  as  presumptuous  on  the  side  of  Episco- 
pacy, none  of  these  utterances  were  ever  set  forth 
OFFICIALLY  —  BY  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 
CHURCH.  The  idea  had  been  expressed,  and 
found  support  in  the  writings  of  certain  individuals, 

but   IT   WAS  NEVER  RECOGNIZED   OFFICIALLY  BY   THE 

CHURCH;  and  even  so  late  as  1659,  when  Episcopacy 
had  suffered  most,  such  theories  were  current  only 
with  a  Jew.  Archbishop  Bramhall  himself,  writing 
at  this  time,  distinctly  says :  "  I  cannot  assent  to  his 
minor  proposition,  that  either  all  or  any  consider- 
able PART  of  the  Episcopal  divines  in  England  do 
UNCHURCH  either  all  or  the  most  part  of  the  Protes- 
tant Churches.  .  .  .  They  do  not  unchurch  the 
Swedish,  Danish,  Bohemian  Churches,"  etc.  .  .  . 
"Let  him  set  his  heart  at  rest.     I  will  remove  this 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       279 

scruple  out  of  his  mind,  that  he  may  sleep  securely 
upon  both  ears.     Episcopal  divines  do  not  deny 

THOSE    CHURCHES    TO    BE    TRUE    CHURCHES  WHEREIN 

SALVATION  MAY  BE  HAD."  (Passage  cited  above.) 
It  is  useless  to  go  over  ground  which  has  already  been 
thoroughly  covered.  We  wish  here  merely  to  em- 
phasize the  evidence  which  we  have  already  adduced, 
which  PROVES,  beyond  all  question,  that  the  agitation 
now  begun,  continued  to  be  regarded  as  7iovel  by  the 
majority  of  English  Churchmen,  and  that  it  never 

ATTAINED  OFFICIAL  RECOGNITION.      Not  only  did  the 

Church  of  England  offically  recognize  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  ordination,  and  the  identity  of  Bishop 
and  Priest,  when  conferring  the  Episcopate  upon 
the  Church  of  Scotland  in  16 10 — but,  again  in  1661, 
when  Episcopacy  was  restored,  and  the  Prayer  Book 
revised,   the  Church  continued  to  maintain  its 

FORMER  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  ON  THIS,  AND  ALL  OTHER 

POINTS,  INVIOLATE,  To  frustrate  any  future  attempt 
to  overthrow  Episcopacy  again  in  England,  the 
Revisers  now  deemed  it  necessary  to  insist  that  from 
henceforth  all  presbyterially  ordained  ministers  de- 
siring to  enter  the  service  of  the  Church  of  England 
should  be  required  to  give  evidence  of  their  good  faith 
and  loyalty  to  the  established  order  by  submitting 
to  reordination  at  the  hands  of  the  Episcopate, 
and  that  none,  who  refused  to  submit  to  this  condi- 
tion, should  ever  "be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a 
lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  the  church 
OF  ENGLAND";  but  that  they  had  no  intention 
whatever    of    altering    the    former    doctrinal 


28o       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

POSITION  of  the  Church  on  the  general  subject  of  the 
VALIDITY  of  other  Ministries  and  Churches,  by  such 
restriction,  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  fact  that 
in  doing  this,  they  formally  certify  in  the  Preface 
to  the  Revised  Book,  that  they  had  taken  pains  not 
to  alter  or  change  anything  that  was  material,  either 
in  the  Doctrine  or  the  Practice  of  the  Church. 

They  further  reveal  the  official  view  of  the 
Church  on  the  subject  of  the  number  of  "orders" 
which  were  to  be  regarded  as  essential,  by  now, 
for  the  first  time,  introducing  Rubrics  before  the 
Ordination  Services  of  Deacons  and  Priests,  declaring 
these  to  be  "necessary  ...  in  the  church  of 
CHRIST,"  and  as  significantly  omitting  to  place 
such  a  Rubric  before  the  Service  of  the  Consecration 
of  a  Bishop;  thus  reasserting  the  view,  not  only  of 
their  predecessors  (the  Sixteenth  Century  divines  in 
England),  but  of  the  whole  church  catholic  that 
the  essential  Orders  were  but  two  (Presbyterate  and 
Diaconate)  and  that  the  Episcopate  was  not,  strictly 
speaking  an  order,  but  an  office  of  the  Presbyter- 
ate. ^  Furthermore,  to  settle  all  misapprehension  as 
regards  the  requirement  of  reordination,  they  give 
unmistakable  evidence  that  this  restriction  was  a 
mere  expedient  to  insure  the  stability  of  the  Episco- 
pal Government  "in  the  Church  of  England"  against 
any  future  Presbyterian  attacks,  and  not  intended 

'  For,  as  we  have  seen,  both  from  the  list  of  authorities  cited  in 
this  chapter,  as  well  as  from  the  direct  assertions  of  such  eminent 
"CathoHc"  writers  as  Blunt  and  Maskell,  this  was  the  Catholic  view 
till  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century. " 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       281 

as  any  reflection  upon  the  actual  validity  of  other 
forms  of  Ordination,  by  enacting  as  a  Proviso  to 
Act  XIV.  Carol.  II.,  that  the  King  might  still  con- 
tinue, at  his  discretion,  to  admit  such  Presbyterian 
Clergy  when  he  deemed  it  advisable.  We  know  that 
the  King  did  act  upon  this  proviso  a  short  time 
afterwards;  we  know  that  the  same  has  never  been 
revoked,  and  is  still  therefore  the  Law;  we  know,  yet  fur- 
ther, that  this  Revision  of  1662  is  the  last  of  any  im- 
portance that  has  been  made;  we  know,  in  other 
words,  that  all  the  Doctrinal  principles  re-affirmed  at 
that  time  are  still  the  established  teaching  of  the  church 

OF  ENGLAND  and  this  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Hence  we  know  to-day  that  it  is  still  the  official 
DOCTRINE,  both  of  the  Church  of  England  and  our 
own,  (of  which  any  one  can  satisfy  himself  in  a  mo- 
ment, who  will  glance  at  the  Rubrics  in  the  Ordinal) 
that  only  the  "orders"  of  priest  and  deacon  are 
regarded  as  "NECESSARY  ...  in  the  church 
OF  CHRIST" — that  Bishops  are  not  "ordered," 
but  only  "consecrated."  To  quote  the  Ninth 
Edition  of  the  Britannica  once  more,  "The  Church 
of  England  expressly  recognizes  the  Diaconate  and  the 
Priesthood,  B  UT NO  OTHERS,  as  distinct  ORDERS. ' ' 
We  know,  finally,  that  the  Church's  teaching  thus 
OFFICIALLY  determined  regarding  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  Ordination,  is  still  official  at  this 
very  hour,  and  that  her  repeated  recognition  of  the 
various  Protestant  Organizations  as  true  churches, 
a  recognition  extending  even  to  particular  churches, 
indicated  by  name,  precludes  all  possibility  of  "Cath- 


282       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

olic"  views  and  theories  of  these  matters  being 
regarded  as  official  in  this  Church.  Not  only  did 
the  "exclusive"  view  of  the  Episcopate  advanced  by 
Bancroft  and  Laud  fail  of  obtaining  official  recogni- 
tion, but  that  it  was  not  approved  by  Cosin,  and  the 
majority  of  the  Revisers  and  other  prominent  church- 
men of  that  period,  and  of  the  ensuing  century,  is 
clearly  indicated  from  numbers  of  passages  in  their 
private  works  and  letters — many  of  which  we  have 
already  cited.  The  truth  is  these  "novel"  opinions, 
after  a  certain  period  of  agitation,  were  obscured  and 
partially  forgotten  for  the  next  hundred  years  or 
more,  and  it  was  fiot  until  the  Oxford  Movement  of 
i8jj  that  they  were  resurrected  and  brought  once  more 
into  prominence.  Under  the  able  leadership  of  New- 
man, Keble,  Pusey,  Manning,  and  others,  these 
principles  were  not  only  reasserted,  but  they  were 
developed  far  beyond  the  intent  or  even  the  imagina- 
tion of  their  Seventeenth  Century  originators,  and 
even  the  genius  of  Newman,  the  real  philosopher  of 
the  movement,  was  unable  to  gain  for  them  official 
RECOGNITION.  On  the  contrary,  instead  of  being 
accepted  as  a  legitimate  interpretation  of  the  position 
of  the  Church  of  England,  the  Tracts  were  condemned 
by  A  UTHORITY.  It  was  this  very  official  re- 
jection of  the  movement,  that  caused  Newman, 
Manning,  and  a  host  of  others,  to  leave  the  Church 
of  England  and  enter  the  Church  of  Rome,  where 
alone  such  doctrine  coidd  be  vindicated.  Yet,  re- 
member it  is  these  very  principles  thus  officially 
condemned  by  the  Church  at  that  time,  that  are  held 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDvS       283 

up  now  before  us  by  "Catholics"  as  the  official 
DOCTRINES  of  this  Church.  Ay,  doctrines  for  which 
men,  just  one  hundred  years  ago,  felt  constrained  to 
leave  the  Church,  are  now  proclaimed  official  and 
AUTHORITATIVE  within  it.  A  Bishop  of  the  Church 
of  England — a  follower  of  the  officially  condemned 
opinions  of  Newman  and  Manning,  has  the  temerity 
to  challenge  the  Church  to  her  face,  publicly  to  admit 
that  the  authorized  statements  of  her  own  Articles 
and  other  Formularies  are  official,  and  even  pre- 
sumes to  demand  that  a  fellow  Bishop,  who  has  had 
the  audacity  to  enforce  one  of  these  Articles  (Art. 
XXn.)  particularly,  who  has  stood  loyally  by  the 
authorized  teaching  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  and 
their  successors  as  to  ''the  meafimg  and  value  of 
Episcopacy''  {Eccles.,  Anglic,  p.  20),  and  has,  gener- 
ally, in  the  name  of  ''the  true  Protestant  Religio7i  es- 
tablished in  the  Church  of  England''  {Laud  himself)  or, 
if  you  prefer,  in  the  name  of  "the  Protestant  epis- 
copal Church  of  ENGLAND  and  Ireland"  (Act  of 
ParHament,  1828)  sought  earnestly  "to  protestantize 
the  world"  (Ecces.  Anglic,  p.  29) — shall  be  brought 
to  trial  for  "//£i?£57'7/ 

Finally,  it  is  not  only  preposterous  for  "Catholics" 
to  assume  that  they  represent  the  true  official  at- 
titude of  this  Church  on  all  these  disputed  points. 
It  is  not  only  impossible  for  them  to  maintain  that 
their  view  of  the  Episcopate,  with  its  consequent 
corollaries  regarding  the  validity  of  other  forms  of 
ordination,  and  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  Church 
Catholic,  etc., — was  the  generally  received  or  catii- 


284       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

OLIC  doctrine  prior  to  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century"  (the  best  "Cathohc"  authorities  them- 
selves being  witnesses  to  the  contrary).  It  is  equally 
as  absurd  for  them  to  imagine  that  their  view  of  the 
Episcopate  can  be  justified  as  either  primitive,  apos- 
tolic, or  historically  Catholic,  by  appealing  to  the 
results  of  modern  scholarship.  On  the  contrary  it 
is  jtotorious  that  the  well-nigh  unanimous  verdict  of 
modern  scholars  is  antagonistic  to  the  ''catholic'' 
theory.  What  we  mean  to  assert  is  that  this  view  of 
the  Anglican  Reformers,  and  their  colleagues  on  the 
continent,  so  far  from  being  obsolete  to-day,  so  far 
from  being  the  opinion  merely  of  a  few  old-fashioned, 
unprogressive,  out-of-date.  Low  Churchmen,  and 
"the  mass  of  ignorant,  unenlightened  Protestants," 
is,  on  the  contrary,  one  of  the  best  established  facts 
with  modern  critics  and  theologians.  Not  only 
is  it  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  best  Protestant 
authorities,  but  by  far  the  greater  part  of  our  own 
Anglican  scholars,  and  not  a  few  even  of  the  foremost 
Roman  Catholic  historians  and  theologians,  now 
freely  admit  that  the  Episcopate  as  we  have  it  to-day, 
is  not  the  Episcopate  of  the  primitive  Church,  but  the 
result  of  a  long  process  of  development.  The  exclu- 
sive claims  and  pretensions  now  commonly  made  for 
it  by  "Catholics"  and  others,  were  absolutely  un- 
known in  apostolic  times,  and  even  for  a  long  period 
thereafter.  Among  the  large  number  of  modern 
authorities  who  deny  the  "Catholic"  theory  re- 
specting the  origin  of  the  Episcopate,  its  acceptance 
as    a    separate    Order,    etc.,    are    the    following: — 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       285 

Gieseler,  Neandcr,  Schaff,  Herzog,  Duchesne,  Light- 
foot,  Hort,  Sanday,  Briggs,  Lindsay,  Fairbairn, 
Hatch,  A.  V.  G.  Allen,  Auguste  Sabatier,  McGiffert, 
Harnack,  Ramsay,  Arnold,  Whateley,  Dean  Stanley, 
Westcott,  Ellendorf,  Moule,  Perowne,  Goode,  Jacob, 
Geo.  P.  Fisher,  Dean  Hodges,  etc.  ^  In  fact  we  might 
fill  a  volume  with  quotations  from  these  modern 
authorities  alone.  We  can  not  do  more,  however, 
than  cite  a  few  passages  at  random.  Lightfoot,  for 
example — by  many  regarded  as  the  foremost  of  all 
Anglican  scholars — after  stating  the  well-known  fact 
that  in  the  apostolic  age  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were 
identical,  goes  on  to  say — "  Nor  is  it  only  in  the  apos- 
tolic writings  that  this  identity  is  found.  St. 
Clement  wrote  probably  in  the  last  decade  of  the 
first  century,  and  in  his  language  the  terms  are  con- 
vertible. Towards  the  close  of  the  second  century 
the  original  application  of  the  term  'Bishop'  seems 
to  have  passed  not  only  out  of  use,  but  almost  out  of 
memory.  ...  In  the  fourth  century  when  the 
fathers  of  the  Church  began  to  examine  the  Apostolic 
records  with  a  more  critical  eye,  they  at  once  detected 
the  fact.  ...  Of  his  predecessors  the  Ambrosial 
Hilary  had  discerned  the  same  truth.  Of  his  con- 
temporaries and  successors,  Chrysostom,  Pelagius, 
Theodore  of  INIopsuestia,  Theodoret,  all  acknowledge 
it.  Thus  in  every  one  of  the  extant  Commentaries 
on    the    epistles    containing    the    crucial    passages, 

» We  do  not  attempt  to  give  them  in  chronological  order.  The 
names  themselves  are  enough  to  show  the  consensus  of  opinion  for  the 
past  two  hundred  years. 


286       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

whether  Greek  or  Latin,  before  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century,  this  identity  is  affirmed."  Again,  "Even 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth  century  when  the  independence 
and  power  of  the  episcopate  had  reached  its  maxi- 
mum, it  was  still  customary  for  a  Bishop  in  writing  to  a 
Presbyter  to  address  him  as  ^fellow  Presbyter,''  thus  hear- 
ing testimony  to  a  substantial  IDENTITY  OF  ORDER. 
NOR  DOES  IT  APPEAR  THAT  THIS  VIEW 
WAS  EVER  QUESTIONED  UNTIL  THE  RE- 
FORM A  TION. "  (Comm.  on  Philipp.,  pp.  96, 230.) 
Thus  we  see  that  one  of  the  greatest  of  modern 
scholars,  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  England  asserts 
emphatically  that  the  Anglican  Reformers  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century  were  correct  in  maintaining  that 
it  had  ever  been  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Chtirch, 
that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  one  ORDER.  He 
fully  corroborates  our  contention  (supported  as  we 
have  seen  by  such  "  Catholics"  as  Blunt  and  Maskell) 
that  this  was  the  received  view  down  to  the  Reforma- 
tion. This  means  again,  that  the  present  "catholic" 
theory  which  regards  the  Episcopate  as  a  separate 
and  superior  order  from  the  Presbyterate,  with  all 
its  corollaries  regarding  the  nature  of  a  valid  Ministry 
and  Church,  so  far  from  being  catholic  doctrine, 
asserted  "semper,  uhigiie,  et  ab  omnibus,''  is  a  recent 
invention — never  heard  of  till  the  Reformation, 
never  asserted,  as  Blunt  admits,  "till  the  close  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century,"  Who  then  represents  the 
official  attitude  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
attitude  of  the  catholic  church  on  the  subject  of 
Episcopacy — Lightfoot    or    Zanzibar?     Was    Light- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       2S7 

foot  a  heretic  ?  Gieseler,  the  well-known  historian, 
bears  precisely  the  same  testimony — ''It  is  remarkable 
hoiu  long  this  notion  of  the  ORIGINAL  SAMENESS 
of  Bishops  and  Presbyters  ivas  retained ....  //  was 
not  till  AFTER  THE  REFORMATION  that  this 
view  was  attacked/'  {Hist.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  56-65.)  So 
also  Neander  informs  us  that  it  was  ^'  soon  after  the 
Apostolic  age,  the  standing  office  of  president  of  the 
Presbytery  must  have  been  formed.  .  .  .  Thus 
the  name  (Episcopos)  came  to  be  applied  exclusively 
to  this  Presbyter,  while  the  name  Presbyter  continued 
at  first  to  be  common  to  all;  FOR  the  bishops  as 

PRESIDING  PRESBYTERS,  HAD  NO  OFFICIAL  CHARACTER 
OTHER  THAN  THAT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERS  GENERALLY. 

THEY  WERE  ONLY  primi  tfiter  pares.''  {Hist.,  vol.  i., 
p.  190.)  Herzog  asserts  that  "the  Bishop  early 
acquired  authority  to  appoint  and  ordain  Elders. 
But  even  in  this  respect  there  was  for  several  centuries 
no  uniform  rule;  for  whilst  the  Council  of  Ancyra 
(314)  made  ordination  the  duty  of  Bishops  of  the  larger 
cities,  and  forbid  country  bishops  or  presbyters  to  or- 
dain, THE  DISTINCTION  WAS  NOT  STRICTL  Y 
OBSERVED  IN  OTHER  PARTS  OF  THE 
CHURCH."  {Encyc.  of  TheoL,  Art.  "Bishop.") 
Even  the  Roman  Catholic,  Prof.  Ellendorf  of  Berlin, 
does  not  hesitate  to  add  his  testimony  to  the  same 
effect: — "The  inquiry  now  is,  whether  there  were 
such  Bishops  in  the  Apostolical  Chiirch  as  a  specially 
appointed  institution  given  by  Christ?  After  we  have 
carefully  examined  and  compared  all  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  have  likewise  consiilted 


288       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

the  oldest  traditions  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles, 
we  see  ourselves  forced  decisively  to  reply  in  the 
negative  to  this  question,  and  to  hold  firmly  by  the 
view  that  originally  there  were  no  Bishops  in  the  pre- 
sent sense;  that  from  the  beginning  onward,  Bishop  and 
Priest  formed  one  and  the  same  rank  and  grade,  one 
and  the  same  dignity.  .  .  ,  We  draw  the  conclusion 
that  in  the  Apostolic  Church  there  were  no  Bishops 
as  a  higher  Order  of  rank  above  Priests,  appointed  by 
Christ;  that,  still  more,  Bishops  and  Priests  were  one 
and  the  same,  and  that  accordingly,  in  any  Church, 
there  were  as  many  Bishops  as  there  were  Priests  who 
united  in  a  college — the  Presbytery — in  COMMON  ad- 
ministered the  highest  government  in  the  Church.^'  (Bib. 
Sacra.,  Jan.,  1859 — cited  by  Gallagher.)  Dr.  Charles 
A.  Briggs  writes  exhaustively  on  this  subject  in  an 
article  entitled  The  Historic  Episcopate  as  a  Basis 
of  Reunion,  from  which  we  extract  the  following: 
"Recent  historical  research  is  very  damaging  to  all 
jure  divino  theories  of  Church  government.  .  .  . 
There  is  agreement  among  recent  historical  critics  of 
all  parties  that  there  is  no  record  of  the  institution  of  the 
Diocesan  Bishop  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only 
Bishops  of  the  New  Testament  are  Presbyter-Bishops, 
and  these  are  ever  associated  in  a  college  or  Presby- 
tery. Nowhere  do  we  find  a  Church  under  the  guid- 
ance of  ONE  of  these  Presbyter-Bishops.  Nowhere 
do  we  find  more  than  one  Church  in  one  city.  Hatch, 
Lightfoot,  Gore,  Sanday,  Harnack,  and  Schaff  are 
agreed  as  to  this  point.  .  .  .  The  claim  that 
Bishops  are  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles  is  no 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       289 

LONGER  DEFENDED  ON  THE  GROUND  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAiVIENT,  BUT  ON  THE  GROUND  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF 
THE    SECOND    CHRISTIAN     CENTURY.     .     .     .       We   are 

not  on  the  ground  of  the  Divine  right  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  have  nothing  more  than  very  ancient 
historic  right  for  the  Historic  Episcopate,  hut  no  Divine 
right.  .  .  .  The  claim  that  ordination  by  Diocesan 
Bishops  has  special  grace,  without  which  there  is  no 
VALID  MINISTRY,  is  the  most  objectionable  oj  all 
the  claims  that  are  put  forth  on  behalf  of  the  Historic 
Episcopate  at  the  present  time.     WE  HOLD  THAT 

THERE  IS  NO  EVIDENCE  FOR  THIS  IN  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT,    OR    IN    THE    SECOND    CHRISTIAN    CENTURY." 

Thomas  Wymberly  Mossman,  Rector  of  Torrington, 
in  his  History  of  the  Early  Christian  Church,  tells  us 
that  "it  has  been  too  hastily  assumed  that  Protest- 
ants and  Non-Conformists,  as  they  are  called,  would 
not  have  had  standing  ground  in  the  Primitive 
Church.  I  thought  so  once.  Deeper  reading  and 
reflection,  have  convinced  me  of  the  contrary." 
(Preface,  p.  xiv.)  "All  ancient  writers  are  brought 
into  perfect  harmony  with  each  other — the  Apostles 
themselves,  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.  Clement 
of  Rome,  Tertullian,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome, 
even  St.  Cyprian,  the  traditions  of  particular 
Churches,  facts  of  history  without  number,  which 
no  longer  require  to  be  explained  away,  but  fit  har- 
moniously into  the  fair  edifice  of  historical  truth, 
all  unite  in  testifying  with  accordant  voice  what  the 
great  doctor  of  the  Church,  St.  Jerome,  proclaims  in 
the  words  quoted  abovfe,  that  episcopacy  was  not 


290       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

OF  THE  lord's  INSTITUTION,  BUT  WAS  A  CUSTOM 
WHICH     GREW     UP     TO     TAKE     AWAY     SCHISM.     .     .     . 

How  it  is  possible  for  any  one,  most  of  all  that  school 
which  professes  to  glory  in  accepting  the  Fathers  as 
witnesses  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  to  shut  their  eyes  to  the  testimony  of  St. 
Jerome,  is  one  of  those  mysteries  which  will  probably 
always  remain  a  perplexity  to  the  student  of  moral 
philosophy."  (p.  98  et  seq.)  In  further  comment 
upon  the  primitive  identity  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
and  the  fact  that  Presbyters  did  ordain  at  times,  he 
makes  this  pertinent  remark:  "The  fact  that  Mark 
himself  (the  reputed  founder  of  the  Church  at  Alex- 
andria) who  certainly  did  not  hold  any  higher  rank 
in  the  Apostolic  Church  than  that  of  one  of  the 
Seventy  disciples,  in  other  words,  of  Presbyter,  or 
Elder,  yet  ordained  other  presbyters,  is  a  proof 
that  Presbyters  had  the  power  of  ordination.  If 
there  were  any  truth  in  the  Episcopal  theory,  that 
Bishops  have  succeeded  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles, 
Presbyters  of  the  Seventy  Elders,  St.  Mark  ought  to 
have  been  ordained  Bishop,  before  he  himself  could 
ordain,  but  all  antiquity  testifies  that  mark 
was  never  anything  higher  than  a  presbyter.  " 
Dr.  G.A.Jacob,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  says:  "The 
Episcopate  in  the  modern  acceptation  of  the  term, 
and  as  a  distinct  clerical  Order,  does  not  appear  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  was  gradually  introduced  and 
extended  throughout  the  Church  at  a  later  period. " 
Elsewhere,  he  writes:  "Jerome  expressly  affirms 
that  it  was  ecclesiastical  custom,  and  the  desire  to 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       291 

prevent  disputes  and  not  any  divine  law  that 
caused  the  distinction  between  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters. .  .  .  Long  after  the  general  estabHsh- 
ment  of  Episcopacy,  and  reaching  even  to  the  fourth 
century,  traces  are  to  be  found  of  Presbyterian  or- 
dinations still  retaining  their  place  in  the  Christian 
Church."     (p.  67  et  seq.) 

Dr.  Henry  A.  Boardman,  in  his  work  on  the  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  says:  "I  shall  show  in  another 
connection,  that  it  was  the  common  judgment  of  the 
Reformers  and  the  Reformed  Churches,  that  BisJiops 
and  Presbyters  are  by  Divine  institution  ONE  ORDER, 
and  that  the  existing  arrangements  in  prelatical 
Churches  by  which  the  powers  of  jurisdiction  and 
ordination  have  been  taken  from  Presbyters,  and 
given  exclusively  to  the  Bishops,  is  a  matter  of  mere 
human  arrangement."  Again,  after  examining  the 
subject  exhaustively,  he  says:  "These  extracts 
show  that  it  is  the  common  judgment  of  reformed 
CHRISTENDOM,  a  party  in  the  Church  of  England  and 
in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  excepted, 
that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are,  according  to  the 
Word  of  God,  of  one  order,  and  that  presbyters, 
equally  with  Bishops,  have  a  right  to  ordain.  " 
Dr.  George  P.  Fisher,  the  well  known  Church  histo- 
rian gives  precisely  the  same  evidence.  ' '  Gradually, ' ' 
says  he,  "in  the  Church,  ordination  came  to  be  the 
peculiar  prerogative  of  the  Bishop ;  but  as  late  as  the 
Council  of  Ancyra  (a.  d.  314),  we  find  by  the  13th 
Canon,  that  Presbyters,  with  the  Bishop's  consent, 
may  still  ordain.     In  the  great  Church  of  Alexandria, 


292       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

as  we  are  told  by  Jerome,  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  a  vacancy  in  the  Episcopal  office  was 
filled  by  the  twelve  Presbyters  from  their  own  num- 
ber, who,  it  would  appear,  if  he  received  any  new 
consecration,  themselves  advanced  him  to  the  higher 
office;  as,  indeed,  Hilary  Ambrosiaster,  and  Euty- 
chius.  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  the  Ninth  Century, 
expressly  state."  He  also  refers  to  "the  thoroughly 
learned  and  candid  discussion  of  the  whole  subject" 
presented  by  Lightfoot  (whose  testimony  we  have 
already  adduced),  and  sums  up  the  general  attitude 
of  modern  scholars  upon  the  matter  in  these  signifi- 
cant words :  ' '  Respecting  the  rise  of  the  Episcopate, 
there  is,  at  the  present  day,  a  near  approach  to  a 
CONSENSUS  among  scholars  in  the  various  Protestant 
Churches."  (See  his  Beginnings  of  Christianity.) 
But  strong  as  all  this  evidence  is,  it  is  as  nothing, 
beside  that  which  Dr.  Edwin  Hatch  has  presented. 
In  fact,  we  have  up  to  this  point  adduced  only  the 
testimony  of  the  more  conservative  modern  authori- 
ties. If  we  should  accept  the  views  of  Dr.  Hatch, 
whose  work  on  the  Organization  of  the  Early  Chris- 
tian Churches  is  considered  by  many  scholars  to  be 
the  ablest  discussion  of  the  subject  that  has  yet 
appeared,  as  it  certainly  is  the  most  radical,  we  should 
be  driven  into  a  position  still  more  extreme.  It  is 
not  our  purpose,  however,  to  enter  here  and  now  into 
the  merits  or  demerits  of  this  author's  theory  on  the 
subject,  and  we  mention  it  here  only  to  show  that  the 
tendency  of  the  latest  scholarship  is  still  more  radical, 
that  so  far  from  favouring  "catholic"  opinions  as 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       293 

to  the  origin  of  Episcopacy,  and  the  related  questions 
concerning  ordination  and  government  in  the  primi- 
tive Church,  the  present  tendency  is  to  go  even  be- 
yond the  views  regarded  as  "orthodox"  by  most 
non-Episcopal  bodies  themselves.  This  means  that 
whatever  may  be  the  real  truth  of  the  matter,  recent 
scholars  are  at  least  very  generally  agreed  that  it  is 
7iot  embodied  in  the  doctrines  of  "Catholics."  As 
Prof.  Fisher  has  expressed  it,  there  is  "a  near  ap- 
proach to  a  CONSENSUS  among  scholars"  on  this 
point.  Again,  as  Principal  Fairbairn  (himself  an 
eminent  authority)  has  told  us,  in  commenting  upon 
this  very  work  of  Dr.  Hatch:  "English  scholarship, 
broadened  and  illumined  by  German,  is  becoming  too 
critical  in  spirit  and  historical  in  method,  to  spare 
the  old  High  Anglican  doctrines.  The  Divine  Right 
of  Episcopacy  is  dead;  it  died  of  the  light  created  by 
historical  criticism.     It  is  open  to  no  manner  of 

DOUBT  THAT  THE  MODERN  BISHOP  HAS   NO   PLACE  IN 

THE  NEW  TESTAiiENT. "  (Quotcd  in  The  True  Hist. 
Epis.,  p.  288.)  But  finally,  whatever  may  be  said 
in  criticism  of  the  picture  which  Dr.  Hatch  has  por- 
trayed of  the  early  organization  of  the  Christian 
Churches,  and  the  gradual  development  of  the  Min- 
istry, there  is,  at  least,  no  reasonable  ground  for 
doubting  the  general  conclusion  to  which  it  leads, 
viz :  that  in  the  last  analysis  of  the  matter,  the  ulti- 
mate  SOURCE  OF  POWER,   the  RESERVOIR  OF   DIVINE 

GRACE  AND  AUTHORITY  is  not  any  one  Order  of  the 
T^Iinistry,  but  the  entire  body  of  the  Church.  In 
fact,  all  theories  which  make  the  Church  to  depend 


294       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

for  its  very  being  or  existence  either  upon  the  Episco- 
pate or  any  other  grade  of  the  Ministry,  completely 
reverse  the  true  logical  order.  The  Church  is  not  a 
function  of  the  Ministry,  but  the  Ministry  is  a  function 
of  the  Church — it  is  that  arm  of  the  Church  which 
ministers  or  administers,  as  through  a  channel,  the 
Divine  Grace.  This  Grace  or  Power  so  administered 
is  unquestionably  Divine — that  is,  considered  in  itself, 
per  se,  it  is  not  from  below,  but  from  above — it  is 
not  of  Man  but  of  God — it  is  not  of  either  the  Minis- 
try or  the  Church,  but  of  Christ.  Nevertheless 
through  the  incarnation  Christ  has  deposited  this 
Power  in  the  Body  of  all  believers — the  Church — as  a 
reservoir,  which  body  or  church  possesses  the  power 
to  provide  what  human  agencies  or  channels  it  may 
see  fit,  for  its  proper  distribution  or  administration. 
It  would  have  been  perfectly  possible  for  Christ  to 
have  instituted  or  ordained  some  particular  form  or 
pattern  of  Ministry,  to  be  perpetuated,  had  he  so 
desired,  but  the  significant  fact  is  that  there  is  no 

ONE   FORM    OR   PATTERN    PRESCRIBED    ANYWHERE    IN 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  This  was  the  imanimous 
opinion  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  and  is  the  gener- 
ally accepted  view  of  modern  scholars.  As  an  actual 
matter  of  fact,  the  New  Testament  reveals  not  three, 
but  many  orders  of  Ministers — no  one  set  of  which 
are  anywhere  prescribed  as  absolutely  essential,  and 
it  is  only  in  post-Apostolic  times  that  two  out  of  all 
the  original,  and  one  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the  New 
Testament  {i.  e.  as  a  separate  Order),  gradually 
emerge  as  predominant.     The  best  that  can  be  said. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       295 

then,  is  that,  while  no  one  form  of  the  Ministry  is 
actually  commanded,  yet  while  it  is  always  a  duty  to 
adhere  as  strictly  as  possible  to  whatever  example  was 
set  by  the  Apostles,  and  to  whatever  has  come  down 
from  the  very  beginning  with  but  little  change,  it  is 
incumbent  upon  us  to  preserve  these  three  Orders 
as  being,  obviously,  those  which  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  antiquity  and  catholicity  most  particu- 
larly demands  that  we  should  preserve.  Even  these 
three,  our  Anglican  divines  were  most  careful  to 
point  out,  w^ere  not  of  equal  importance;  for  while 
the  Episcopate  was  undoubtedly  ancient  and  catholic 
it  was  only  the  Presbyterate  and  the  Diaconate  that 
could  actually  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  itself, 
and  which  were  unquestionably  of  Apostolic  origin.* 
While,  therefore,  it  was  highly  expedient  that  the 
Episcopate  should  be  preserved,  it  was  more  than 
merely  "expedient"  that  the  other  two  should  be 
maintained.  It  was  really  "necessary"  to  maintain 
them,  if  the  Church  desired  to  hold  to  Apostolic  pre- 
cedent and  example.  While,  therefore,  not  intending 
to  insist  upon  either  of  these  two  as  "necessary"  to 
the  actual  BEING  of  the  Church  {for  this  was  the  whole 
point  of  her  controversy  with  the  Puritans,  see  Hooker), 
she  did  regard  it  as  ''necessary''  to  the  ''well-being' 
thereof,  and  accordingly   took  pains  to    emphasize 

'  Here  again  we  must  remind  our  readers  that  the  High  Church 
assumption  that  Bishops  succeeded  to  the  rank  then  called  Apostles, 
is  pure  assumption.  There  is  absolutely  no  proof  of  this.  Even 
Lightfoot  says,  "the  opinion  .  .  .  that  the  same  oflficers  who  were 
first  called  Apostles  came  afterwards  to  be  designated  Bishops,  is 
baseless.''     {Christian  Ministry,  p.  30.) 


296       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

this  fact  in  the  Rubrics  of  the  Ordinal  (to  which  we 
have  already  referred) . '  We  see,  therefore,  that  back 
of  all  her  insistence  upon  the  "necessity"  {in  the 
above  sense)  of  preserving  the  Presbyterate  and  the 
Diaconate,  and  the  wisdom  of  preserving  the  ancient 
and  catholic  office  of  Bishop — if  she  were  really  to 
represent  the  Primitive,  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church — back  of  all  that,  we  repeat,  she  took  the 
utmost  pains  to  point  out,  to  her  Puritan  assailants 
on  the  one  hand,  and  her  Roman  opponents  on  the 
other,  that  no  one  form  of  ministry  or  govern- 
ment WAS  ever  divinely  authorized  as  abso- 
lutely ESSENTIAL  TO  THE  BEING  OF  THE  CHURCH. 
This  is,  as  we  have  shown,  repeatedly  affirmed  by  the 
Anglican  divines  both  of  the  sixteenth  and  of  the 
seventeenth  centuries.  In  a  word,  then,  this  conclu- 
sion to  which  the  investigations  of  Dr.  Hatch  lead  us 
— viz:  that  the  source  or  reservoir  of  the  Divine 
Power  is  the  entire  body  of  the  Church,  and  not  any 
one  Order  of  the  Ministry — is,  after  all  is  said  and 
done,  nothing  more  than  what  all  our  own  Anglican 
Reformers  taught — the  position  briefly  summarized 
by  the  judicious  Hooker  himself  as  follows:  "the 

WHOLE  CHURCH  VISIBLE  BEING  THE  TRUE  ORIGINAL 

'Please  observe  that  whenever  we  speak  of  the  "Necessity"  of 
these  two  "Orders,"  we  do  so  only  in  this  sense  (the  sense  in  which  it 
was  used  by  the  Revisers  of  1662) — necessary  if  the  Church  would 
preserve  a  precedent  actually  inaugurated  by  the  Apostles  and  clearly 
revealed  in  the  New  Testament  (which  cannot  be  said  of  the  Episco- 
pate)— necessary,  in  the  sense  that  no  Ancient  Custom  or  Tradi- 
tion should  be  abandoned,  save  for  weighty  reasons — least  of  all 
an  Apostolic  Custom.     See  Art.  XXXIV. 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       297 

SUBJECT    OF    ALL    POWER,    it    hath    not    ORDINARILY 

allowed  any  other  than  Bishops  alone  to  ordain: 
howbeit  as  the  ordinary  course  is  ordinarily  in  all 
things  to  be  observed,  so  it  may  be  in  some  cases 

NOT  unnecessary  THAT  WE  DECLINE  FROM  THE  ORDI- 
NARY WAYS."  {Eccles.  Polity,  Bk.  vii.,  Ch.  xiv.,  11.) 
Again,  this  opinion  of  the  Anglican  Reformers' 
was  likewise  the  opinion  held  by  Tertullian,  who  dis- 
tinctly affirms  that  "  The  authority  of  the  Church  and 
the  honor  sanctified  through  the  establishment  of  the 
Order  {of  the  Clergy)  has  constituted  the  difference 
between  the  Order  and  the  people.  Accordingly,  where 
there  is  no  establishment  of  the  ecclesiastical  Order,  you 
offer,  and  baptize  and  are  Priest  alone  for  yourself. 
But  where  there  are  three,'' there  is  the  Church,  THOUGH 
THE  Y  BE  LA  YMEN. ' '  Therefore,  if  you  have  the 
right  of  a  Priest  in  your  own  person,  iji  case  of  neces- 
sity, it  behooves  you  to  have  also  the  discipline  of  a 
Priest. ' '     {De  Exh.  Cast.  7 .) 

But  why  be  shocked  at  such  a  statement?  If 
Tertullian's  opinions  are  not  to  be  trusted,  and  if 

» We  might  quote  any  number  of  passages  bearing  out  the  fact 
that  this  view  of  Hooker  was  the  common  opinion  of  the  Anglican 
Reformers,  but  space  forbids.  However,  if  the  reader  will  consult  the 
following  passages,  he  will  find  enough  to  convince  him  that  this 
view  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Hooker.  See  Whitgift,  Works,  vol. 
i.,  p.  184;  Dr.  John  Bridges,  Defence  of  Gov't  Estab.  in  Ch.  Eng., 
pp.  319,  320;  Bishop  Thos.  Cooper,  Admon.  to  People  of  Eng.,  p.  163; 
Dr.  Richard  Cosin,  Answer  to  an  Abstract,  p.  58. 

^  "Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  My  Name,  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them"  (Matt,  xviii.,  20).  This  is  the  basis 
of  the  Church,  for  wherever  the  Divine  Presence  is,  there  is  likewise 
the  Divine  Autlwrity. 


298       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

even  the  views  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  Anglican 
Divines  who  themselves  formulated  the  official 
doctrines  of  our  Church  are  no  longer  to  be  regarded 
as  official  in  said  Church  (whatever  the  explanation 
of  such  inscrutable  contradiction),  has  the  name  of  the 
"judicious  Hooker"  ceased  altogether  to  be  revered 
among  us?  Or  to  come  down  to  our  own  time,  must 
Lightfoot,  too,  be  banished  from  the  ranks  of  ortho- 
dox Anglican  Divines  for  venturing  to  make  the  same 
audacious  declaration  as  Tertullian  and  Hooker — ^viz : 
that  the  authority  of  the  whole  Body  of  the  Church 
was  superior  to  that  of  the  Episcopate,  that  the  latter 
was,  in  reality,  merely  a  function  of  the  former?  Yet 
if  he  did  not  likewise  hold  this  opinion,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  following :  "  It  may  be  a  general  rule, 
it  may  be  under  ordinary  circumstances  a  practically 
universal  law,  that  the  highest  acts  of  congregational 
worship  shall  be  performed  through  the  principal 
officers  of  the  Congregation.  But  an  emergency  may 
arise  when  the  Spirit  and  not  the  letter  must  decide. 
The  Christian  ideal  will  then  interpose  and  interpret 
our  duty.  The  higher  ordinance  of  the  universal  priest- 
hood will  overrule  all  special  limitations.  THE  LA  Y- 
MAN  WILL  ASSUME  FUNCTIONS  WHICH 
ARE  OTHERWISE  RESTRICTED  TO  THE 
ORDAINED  MINISTER.  "  Then,  as  further  justi- 
fying this  opinion,  he  refers  again  to  the  self -same 
passage  in  Tertullian,  which  we  have  just  cited,  only 
quoting  it  at  greater  length.  (See  Epis.  to  Philippians, 
p.  268.)  IMoreover,  Dean  Alford,  and  a  number  of 
other  modern  scholars  {e.  g.,  Hammond,  Geikie,  Lind- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       299 

say,  etc.)  arc  all  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  the 
Commission  given  by  our  Lord  in  Matt,  xxviii., 
19,  and  which  our  High  Church  brethren  have 
always  assumed,  as  a  matter  of  course,  was  addressed 
to  the  Twelve  Apostles  alone,  was,  in  reality,  ad- 
dressed to  all  the  disciples— the  ENTIRE  BODY  OF 
THE  CHURCH.  Says  he  (Alford) :  "We  are  there- 
fore obliged  to  conclude  that  otliers  were  present  {i.  e., 
besides  the  Eleven).  Whether  these  others  were  the 
'five  hundred  brethren  at  once,'  of  whom  Paul 
speaks,  does  not  appear."  (See  Commentary.) 
Even  Westcott,  in  commenting  upon  the  Commission 
bestowed  in  John  xx.,  19-23,  tells  us  the  same  thing; 
— "The  commission  and  promise  were  given,  like 
the  Pentecostal  blessing,  which  they  prefigure,  to  the 

CHRISTIAN  SOCIETY,  AND  NOT  TO  ANY  SPECIAL  ORDER 

IN  IT."  {The  Revelation  of  the  Risen  Lord,  pp.  81, 
82.)  So  also  Plummer  testifies  to  the  same  effect: 
"The  Commission,  therefore,  in  the  first  instance,  is 

to  the   CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITY  AS   A  WHOLE,   NOT  TO 

THE  MINISTRY  ALONE."  {Cambridge  Bible,  p.  363.) 
This  view  that  the  sovereign  power  to  authorize 
a  valid  Ministry,  and  establish  what  form  of  Ecclesi- 
astical Government  it  may  see  fit,  rests  ultimately 

with    THE    ENTIRE    BODY    OF    THE    CONGREGATION    is, 

of  course,  the  official  view  of  the  Church  itself  as 
set  forth  in  Article  XXHI.,  in  the  Preface  to  the 
Prayer  Book,  and  elsewhere,  but  to  those  who  have 
not  the  desire  to  see  it,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
make  it  evident.  The  mere  fact  that  a  Church,  which 
is  alleged  to  maintain  that  Episcopal  ordination  and 


300       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Government  are  absolutely  essential  to  its  very  BE- 
ING, should  have  been  so  remiss  as  to  make  that 
statement  nowhere  in  any  of  her  official  acts  and  formu- 
laries, but  on  the  contrary  should  have  told  us  that 
all  were  to  be  accounted  lawful  Ministers,  in  any 
Church,  provided  they  had  been  ' '  called  to  this  work 
by  men  who  had  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the 
Congregation,''  and  this,  too,  knowing  full  well  that 
such  a  declaration,  so  far  as  it  possesses  any  meaning 
at  all,  fully  covers  the  Ministry  of  Non-Episcopal 
Churches,  is  a  matter  which,  of  course,  presents  no 
difficulties  whatever  to  such  minds;  the  mere  fact 
that  they  further  (as  is  well  attested  by  numerous  of- 
ficial acts  and  utterances) ,  recognized  such  Churches 
and  Ministries,  again  has  no  bearing  whatever  for 
such  persons  upon  this  interpretation  of  said  Article; 
the  further  fact  that  Bishop  Hooper,  one  of  the  very 
company  who  framed  the  said  Article,  has  himself 
given  this  very  interpretation  of  it  (alleging  that  it 
was  drawn  up  thus,  or  so  worded,  ''lest  that  any  man 
should  be  seduced,  believing  himself  to  be  bound  unto 
any  ordinary  Succession  of  Bishops  and  Priests"), 
(quoted  by  Hardwick,  Hist.  Articles,  Append,  p.  276, 
note),  is,  likewise  of  course,  of  no  consequence  (said 
Hooper  being  a  "miscreant,"  a  "Traitor"  etc.); 
the  further  fact  that  numberless  passages  can  be  ad- 
duced from  the  writings  of  the  English  Divines, 
covering  a  period  of  nigh  two  hundred  years,  all 
directly  or  indirectly,  justifying  such  an  interpreta- 
tion; or,  finally,  that  such  a  scholar  as  Burnet,  Bishop 
of  Sarum,  in  a  work  devoted  to  an  'Exposition  of  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       301 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  should  have  gone  exhaustively 
into  the  significance  of  this  very  Article,  and  have 
given  precisely  the  same  interpretation'' — all  these,  of 
course,  are  idle  objections.  But  however  impotent 
to  affect  the  opinions  of  "Catholics,"  we  venture  to 
assert  that  with  those  who  have  not  already  pre- 

'  "  If  a  company  of  Christians  find  the  public  worship  where  they 
live  to  be  so  defiled  that  they  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  join  in  it, 
and  if  they  do  not  know  of  any  place  to  which  they  can  conveniently 
go,  where  they  may  worship  God  purely,  and  in  a  regular  way; — if, 
I  say,  such  a  body,  finding  some  that  have  been  ordained,  though  to 
the  lower  Junctions,  should  submit  itself  entirely  to  their  conduct,  or, 
finding  none  of  those,  should  by  a  common  consent  desire  some  of  their 
own  numbers  to  minister  to  them  in  holy  things,  and  should  upon  that 
beginning  grow  up  to  a  regulated  Constitution, — though  we  are  very 
sure  that  this  is  quite  out  of  all  rule,  and  could  not  be  done  without 
a  very  great  sin,  unless  the  necessity  were  great  and  apparent,  yet, 
if  the  necessity  is  real  and  not  feigned,  this  is  not  condemned  or 
annulled  by  the  Article  (i.  e..  Art.  XXIII.) — for  when  this  grows  to  a 
Constitution,  and  when  it  was  begun  by  consent  of  a  body  who  are 
supposed  to  liave  an  A  uthority  in  such  an  extraordinary  case,  whatever 
some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this  since  that  time;  yet  we  are 
very  sure,  that  not  only  those  who  penned  the  A  rticles,  hut  the  body  of  this 
Church  for  above  half  an  age  after,  did,  notwithstanding  those  irregu- 
larities, acknowledge  the  Foreign  Churches,  so  constituted,  to  be  true 
Churches  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  a  Church,  though  they  had  been  at 
first  irregularly  formed,  and  continued  still  to  be  in  an  imperfect  state. 
And,  therefore,  the  general  words  in  which  this  part  of  the  Article  (viz.: 
Art.  XXIII. — the  one  in  question)  is  framed,  seem  to  have  been  designed 
on  purpose  not  to  exclude  tliem. "  He  adds  also  on  next  page  (what  is 
attested  everywhere  in  the  writings  of  Anglican  Divines  for  200 
years):  "Neither  our  Reformers,  nor  tlieir  Successors  for  near  eighty 
years  after  those  Articles  were  published,  did  ever  question  the  Constitu- 
tion of  such  Churches."  {Expos.  Thirty-nine  Articles.  See  Art. 
XXIII.)  Nor  since  that  day  have  those  who  questioned  it  ever 
been  able  to  embody  their  opinions  in  the  official  formularies  of  the 
Church.  "Catholics"  are  still  attempting  it.  The  proposed  Name 
— if  adopted — will  be  the  final  official  recognition  of  their  principles. 


302       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

judged  the  case,  they  will  possess  no  little  weight  and 
importance.  The  simple,  unvarnished  truth  is  that 
this  view  of  the  Source  of  Authority  held,  as  we  have 
seen,  not  only  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  scholars 
and  theologians  of  the  present  day,  but  also  by 
Tertullian,  and  by  the  Anglican  Reformers  (whose 
opinion  is  cogently  summed  up  in  the  above  quota- 
tion from  Hooker)  was,  and  is,  the  established  view 
of  the  Church.  Herein  lies  the  answer  to  all  the 
common-place  objections  urged  by  "Catholics" 
against  the  possibility  of  any  organized  body  of 
Christians  legitimately  authorizing  a  Ministry  ac- 
cording to  whatever  pattern  or  plan  it  may  see  fit. 
For  example,  when  we  are  informed  by  Mr.  F.  N. 
Westcott  (whose  statement  may  be  taken  as  repre- 
sentative of  the  general  view  of  "Catholics")  that 
no  Congregation  can  give  Ministerial  Authority, 
"because  laymen  cannot  possibly  give  that  which 
they  never  had ....  A  stream  cannot  rise  higher 
than  its  source,"  etc.  (Catholic  Principles,  pp.  266, 
267),  the  fallacy  should  be  obvious.  "A  stream  can- 
not rise  higher  than  its  source" —  quite  true!  But, 
what  is  higher  than  the  Authority  of  the  Church  or 
Congregation  AS  A  WHOLE?  The  Ministry,  we 
repeat,  is  a  functio?t  of  the  Church,  not  the  Church  of 
the  Ministry.  It  is  simply  the  arm  or  organ  which 
''ministers''  or  ''administers''  the  Sovereign  Power, 
placed  by  God  Himself  in  "the  body"  or  "church" 
as  a  reservoir.  The  collective  Body  of  Laymen  and 
Clergy  combined  (if  there  be  Clergy)  or  otherwise  of 
Laymen  alone,  75  the  SOURCE  of  the  stream — than 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       303 

which  there  is  nothing  ''higher'' — and  that  this  is  the 
OFFICIAL  view  of  the  Church  herself  will  be  seen 
in  a  moment  by  referring  to  any  of  the  official  formu- 
laries of  the  Church,  which  are  all  authorized,  or  set 
forth  authoritatively,  by  the  etitire  body  of  "the  Bishops 
the  Clergy,  and  the  Laity. "  To  be  more  specific — 
the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  itself,  the  very  instrument 
which  sets  forth  what  kind  of  Ministry  and  of  Govern- 
ment shall  exist  in  this  Church,  the  very  instrument 
which  determines  the  kind  of  Ordination  which  shall 
obtain  within  this  Communion,  is  authoritative 
only  because  it  was  "established  by  the  Bishops,  the 
Clergy,  and  Laity  of  said  Church,  in  General  Coiivention 
in  the  mo?ith  of  September,  A.  D.  1792.'"  (See 
Ordinal.)  This  Convention,  in  turn,  was  only  com- 
petent to  "establish''  this  Episcopal  form  of  Govern- 
ment and  Ordination,  because  authorized  or 
EMPOWERED  SO  to  do  by  the  whole  BOD  Y  of  the  people 
in  all  the  Dioceses,  the  entire  BODY  OF  THE 
CHURCH.  Of  course  what  is  true  of  the  Preface  to 
the  Ordinal  is  true  likewise  of  the  entire  Ordinal  it- 
self— is  true  also  of  the  entire  Prayer  Book — of  all 
the  Rites  and  Ceremonies  contained  therein — all  are 
"established"  by  the  will  of  the  entire  church  or 
CONGREGATION,  not  by  any  particular  order  of 
MINISTERS  therein.^  Wherever  in  any  Rubric  it  is 
written  that  the  Bishop,  the  Priest,  or  the  Deacon 
"shall"  do  this  or  that,   the  order  is  authorized 

'  Any  one  familiar  with  the  historic  authorization  of  our  Praj^er 
Book  knows  this  to  be  true.  In  illustration  see  Dalcho,  Hist.  Church 
in  South  Carolina,  Appendix  II. 


304       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

self-evidently  by  the  entire  body,  not  by  any  one 
Order  of  its  Ministry — it  is  the  whole  church  that 
thus  COMMANDS.  The  mistake  is  in  supposing  that 
any  rite  or  ceremony  of  the  Church,  including  even 
the  particular  rites  and  ceremonies  authorized  in  the 
ordaining  of  Deacons,  Priests,  and  bishops  is  of 
the  same  fundamental  importance  as  the  essential 
doctrines  of  the  faith  (and  so  unalterable)  and 
not,  as  we  are  distinctly  told  by  the  same  authority 
which  established  them  "things  i?i  their  own  nature 
INDIFFERENT  and  alterable  and  so  acknowl- 
edged. "  (See  Preface  to  Prayer  Book.)  We  are 
here,  of  course,  contrasting  the  Authority  of  the 
Church  with  that  of  Its  Ministry  only.  It  is  by  no 
means  implied  by  these  assertions  that  the  Power 
of  the  Church  is,  per  se,  arbitrary  and  unlimited.  It 
is,  of  course,  of  the  very  essence  of  the  Church  to 
witness  to  the  Truth  of  Christ  as  manifest  in  the 
Gospel — hence  to  administer  the  Power  entrusted  to 
it  in  accordance  with  THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 
Even  the  Authority  of  the  Church  then  is  limited, 
but  it  is  limited  only  by  Holy  Scripture.  So  far  from 
nullifying  our  argument,  however,  it  is  this  very 
supremacy  of  Holy  Scripture  (so  much  emphasized 
by  the  Reformers)  that  gives  it  point  and  meaning. 
The  mistake,  commonly  made,  is  in  supposing  that 
any  RITE  or  ceremony  not  so  explicitly  com- 
manded in  holy  scripture  as  to  be  beyond  all 
doubt  a  divine  ordinance  is  to  be  fastened  upon 
men  as  a  necessary  observance.  That  Baptism, 
Holy    Communion,    and    Government,    in   ge?ieral, 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       305 

have  been  authorized  of  Holy  Scripture,  no  one  seri- 
ously doubts;  but  that  of  the  many  forms  of  admin- 
istration, or  of  the  many  interpretations  of  the  inner 
meaning  and  significance  of  these  institutions  which 
have  been  advocated  from  time  to  time,  any  one 
can  be  proved  beyond  all  doubt  to  be  expressly 
COMMANDED  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE,  is  quite  another 
proposition.  Whenever  it  came  to  matters  of  this 
kind,  whether  Doctrines  or  Usages,  howsoever  great 
their  Antiquity  or  CathoUcity,  the  Reformers  as- 
serted that  none  could  be  insisted  upon  as  absolutely 
essential,  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  each  particular 
or  national  Church  had  the  right  to  adopt,  abolish, 
alter,  or  amend  such  things  as  they  saw  fit,  provided 
nothing  be  done  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture. 
That  Baptism  is  necessary  and  divinely  ordained, 
is  one  thing ;  but  that  any  one  method  of  administer- 
ing it,  as  for  example,  by  sprinkling,  or  by  pouring, 
or  by  immersion,  was  specifically  ordained  of  Christ 
as  necessary,  and  that,  consequently,  no  other  form  is 
valid,  is  quite  another.  That  Holy  Communion  is 
likewise  necessarily  to  be  observed,  will  generally 
be  admitted  as  a  proposition  resting  upon  the  author- 
ity of  Holy  Scripture;  but  that  the  necessity  of  re- 
ceiving it  fasting,  or  after  Confession  to  a  Priest,  or 
that  it  is  only  valid  when  the  mixed  chalice  is  used, 
etc. — these  are  propositions  which  can  never  be 
demonstrated  out  of  the  statements  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture alone.  So,  in  precisely  the  same  manner,  the 
Reformers  regarded  the  Episcopal  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment.    That    Bishops   are    mentioned    in    Holy 

2o 


3o6       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Scripture  as  ordained  of  the  Apostles  is  absolutely 
undeniable ;  but  that  Bishops  succeeded  to  an  alleged 
"Order''  of  Apostles,  or  that  it  can  be  demonstrated 
upon  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament  alone 
that  they  were  a  distinct  ORDER,  over  and  above 
Presbyters,  and  not  a  mere  OFFICE  of  the  Presby- 
terate ;  or  that  to  them  was  bequeathed  the  exclusive 
prerogative  of  Ordination,  or  that  any  one  ORDER 
was  so  set  apart  by  express  Divine  Command, 
so  that  the  very  existence  of  the  Church,  the 
Sacraments,  and  even  of  individual  Christians  de- 
pended upon  it;  all  these  were  conclusions  which 
they  insisted  possessed  no  warrant  of  holy  writ, 
and  hence  were  "not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that 
they  (it)  should  be  believed.  "  We  repeat,  therefore, 
that  the  particular  kind  of  Ecclesiastical  Govern- 
ment, and  the  particular  Forms  of  Ordination,  pre- 
scribed in  the  Ordinal  for  this  Church — even  like 
the  particular  methods  of  Baptizing  (see  Rubric  as 
to  "dipping"  or  "pouring"),  and  of  administering 
and  receiving  the  Communion  (compare  our  Liturgi- 
cal Form  with  that  of  Greek  or  Roman)  are  binding 
and  authoritative  only  because  "established"  by 
THE  WHOLE  BODY  of  this  ''particular''  Church.  In 
short,  matters  of  "discipline"  or  "church  govern- 
ment" (see  Preface  to  Prayer  Book),  even  like  such 
"rites  and  ceremonies"  (see  Preface,  and  Art. 
XXXIV.)  are  matters  upon  which  Holy  Scripture 
has  set  forth  NO  clear,  certain,  and  unequivocal 
STATEMENTS  OR  COMMANDS  (as  is  evident  from  the 
simple  fact  that  after  centuries  of  discussion   Chris- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       307 

tians  are  still  disagreed  as  to  its  testimony).     For 
that  very  reason,  the  only  authority  that  can  "es- 
tablish" any  one  form  or  method  to  be  observed  in 
these  things  is  that  of  the  entire  body  of  "each  par- 
ticular or  natio7ial  Church.''     In  a  word,  wherever 
disagreement  among   Christians  exists  regarding  the 
attitude  of  Holy  Scripture  upon  any  matter,  there  each 
particidar  or  National  Church  must  decide  for  itself, 
and  its  authority  can  {obviously)  extend  only  to  its 
members.     To  sum  it  all  up,  if  nothing  is  "to  be 
required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an 
article  of  the  Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary 
to  Salvation,"   unless  it  can  be   "read''   in   "Holy 
Scripture, "  or  "may  be  PROVED  thereby"  (Art.  VI.), 
it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  before  the  proposition  that 
Episcopal  Government  is  absolutely  essential  to  the 
BEING  of  the  Church  and  to  the  VALIDITY  of  its 
Ministry  and  Sacraments   can  be  "required  of  any 
man  that  it  shoidd  be  believed,"   etc.,   it  must   be 
clearly  pointed  out  as  an  actual  statement  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  else  must  be  "proved"  or  demonstrated 
as  an  unavoidable  logical  inference  from  actual 
statements  therein.     But  again,   if  with  regard  to 
the  proposition  in  question,  neither  of  these  alterna- 
tives is  possible,  while  it  is  obvious  that  no  part  of 
the  Christian  world  can  insist  upon  the  Episcopal, 
the  Presbyterian,  or  any  other  one  form  of  Govern- 
ment as  EXCLUSIVELY  legitimate,   or  absolutely 
essential,  it  nevertheless  falls  to  each  particular  or 
National  Church  to  decide  for  itself  what  kind  of 
Government  it  shall  recognize,  and  when  once  such  a 


3o8       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Government  shall  have  been  so  "established"  by 
ITS  OWN  AUTHORITY,  the  same  must,  of  necessity,  be 
recognized  as  legitimate  and  allowable  under 
HOLY  scripture,  even  though  it  be  not  absolutely 
required  thereby.  In  other  words,  because  under  the 
DIVINE  CHARTER  of  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  no  One  form  is 
necessary,  and  each  "particular  or  National  Church" 
is  left  free  to  ordain  what  form  of  Government  it  will, 
it  follows  that  whatever  form  any  one  establishes 
BY  ITS  OWN  AUTHORITY,  is  thereby  divinely  sanc- 
tioned. There  is  no  contradiction  involved,  then, 
in  the  assertion  that  the  episcopal  form  is  "estab- 
lished" here  in  our  midst,  only  by  authority  of 
this  particular  church  or  congregation,  and 
yet  is  therein  and  thereby  divinely  authorized. 
The  same  can  also  be  said  of  Presbyterian  Govern- 
ment in  a  Presbyterian  Church.  We  repeat,  there- 
fore, without  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that 
the  Episcopal  Government  is  authoritative  in  this 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  not  because  it  can  be 
"proved"  or  DEMONSTRATED  out  of  the  Scripturcs, 
as  the  ONE  and  only  form  of  government  or- 
dained OF  CHRIST  HIMSELF  (an  assumption  which  is 
simply  preposterous)  but  because  it  has  been  *^  estab- 
lished'' by  the  will  and  authority  of  the  entire  Body  of 
this  Congregation  acting  through  their  chosen  repre- 
sentatives in  Convention  assembled. 

It  is  because  then  this  particular  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment has  been  "established"  by  the  Sovereign 
Power  of  the  entire  Church  or  Congregation  that  it  is 
authoritative,  and  had  the  entire  Body  seen  fit  to 


I 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       309 

"establish''  some  other  Form,  this  other  Form  would 
be  authoritative,  and  Bishops  would  have  no  jurisdic- 
tion  whatever.  This  fact  our  American  Revisers 
further  justify  in  the  Preface  to  the  Prayer  Book 
(again  set  forth  by  the  Entire  Body  of  the  Church) 
wherein,  as  we  have  already  shown,  they  stress  the 
fact  that  matters  of  Disciplirie  or  Ecclesiastical  Govern- 
ment  were  matters  that  could  be  altered  or  changed 
by  particular  Churches  or  Congregations  as  circum- 
stances required,  and  that  because  the  result  of  the 
American  Revolution  had  been  the  establishment  of 
ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  independence,  "the 
different  religious  denominations  of  Christians  in  these 
States  {N.  B.)  were  left  at  full  and  equal  liberty  to 
MODEL  AND  ORGANIZE  THEIR  RESPECTIVE 
CHURCHES,  and  forms  of  Worship,  and  DISCI- 
PLINE, '  in  such  manner  as  they  might  judge  most 
convenient  for  their  future  prosperity,"  etc.  More- 
over, it  is  ridiculous  to  argue  that  such  a  view  under- 
mines all  the  authority  of  the  Episcopate.  Who  is  it 
that  denies  that  the  Sovereign  Power  of  these  United 
States  is  vested  in  the  people — i.  e.  the  entire  mass  of 
citizens?  Yet  does  that  fact  in  any  wise  diminish 
the  legitimate  authority  of  the  President  and  other 
Officers,  or  in  any  sense,  even  the  most  remote,  ab- 
solve any  one  of  us  from  sincere  obedience  to  their 
official  proclamations  and  commands.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  enlarge  upon  this.  We  take  it  that  any 
unbiassed  mind  will  perceive  at  a  glance  that  such  a 
view  no  more  undermines  the  respect  and  reverence 

'  See  meaning  of  "Discipline"  before  explained. 


310       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

due  from  every  churchman  to  his  Bishop,  than  it 
undermines  the  respect  and  reverence  which  every 
citizen  of  these  United  States  owes  his  President. 
It  no  more  justifies  the  conclusion  that  any  individual 
who  imagines  that  he  is  called  to  the  office  and  work 
of  a  Minister  in  the  Church  of  God,  has  therefore  the 
right  to  take  upon  himself  the  administration  of  its 
rites  and  Sacraments,  unauthorized,  than  the  like 
principle  justifies  the  conclusion  that  any  man  who 
imagines  that  he  is  called  to  civil  office,  has  for  that 
reason  any  right  to  assume  such  office  and  to  exer- 
cise the  functions  thereof,  before  he  has  been  legiti- 
mately admitted  thereto  by  "those  to  whom  public 
authority  has  been  given"  in  the  State  to  admit  or 
authorize  such  persons.  Nor  again,  is  anything 
gained  by  attempting  to  muddy  the  waters  by  insinu- 
ating that  the  principle  which  applies  to  the  Civil 
Government  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Ecclesiastical; 
that,  in  the  one  case,  the  power  which  is  exercised  is  a 
purely  Human  power,  latent  in  the  people,  whereas 
in  the  other,  it  is  a  Divine  Power — potential  not  in 
Man  at  all,  but  in  God.  This  again  is  sophistical; 
for,  in  the  first  place,  the  premisses  themselves  are 
untrue.  The  ultimate  Source  of  all  power,  whether 
Civil  or  Ecclesiastical,  is  Diviyie.  "The  powers  that 
be  {i.  e.  the  Civil  Powers)  are  ordained  of  God'* — all 
rulers  are  ''Ministers  of  God''  (Romans  xiii.)  and 
exercise  the  power  and  authority  of  God,  and  if  the 
Divine  Power  can  be  committed  to  the  entire  Body 
of  the  People  in  the  one  case,  it  can  be  likewise 
so  committed  in  the  other.     Furthermore,  whether 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       311 

looked  at  from  the  Protestant  or  from  the  "  Catholic" 
point  of  view,  the  Divine  Power  exercised  by  the 
Ministry  of  the  Church  is,  in  either  case,  committed 
to  earthen  vessels,  entrusted  to  a  body  or  group  of 
mere  men  as  its  reservoir.  It  is  just  as  easy  for  God 
to  place  His  Divine  Power  in  the  entire  Body  of  His 
people  as  in  any  particular  ^' Order''  or  Group  of  that 
Congregation  {i.  e.  Ministers).  If  He  has  placed  it 
in  the  Body  of  the  Church,  the  Bishops  and  other 
Ministers  appointed  by  the  Body  or  Congregation, 
administer  this  Divine  Power,  and  act  with  the 
Authority  of  God  Himself,  just  as  truly  and  as  cer- 
tainly as  they  would  do,  had  the  other  method  of 
administration  been  really  established.  But  enough 
of  this!  The  facts  above  presented  we  believe  are 
quite  sufBcient  to  convince  any  unprejudiced  mind  of 
the  truth  of  our  statement  that  the  attitude  which 
modern  scholarship  has  assumed  toward  the  whole 
problem  of  the  Episcopate  is  one  which  is  utterly 
antagonistic  to  that  which  is  assumed  by  "Catholics," 
and,  mirahile  dictuf — is  in  further  substantial  agree- 
ment with  that  maintained  by  Cranmer,  Latimer, 
Ridley,  Hooper,  Jewel.  It  is  in  agreement,  in  fact, 
with  all  those  "ignorant  and  fanatical  Reformers" 
of  the  sixteenth  century  who  framed  our  Prayer 
Book,  Articles,  and  other  unfortunate  ordinances, 
those  "base  traitors"  and  "miscreants,"  the  "mis- 
takes" of  whose  "Reformation"  so  called,  we  would 
now  "correct,"  and  whose  "heretical  Protestantism," 
we  would  now  expunge  from  our  Church. 

What  claim,  then,  can  these  "CathoHc"  principles 


312       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

have  upon  the  members  of  this  Communion  ?  These 
principles  are  neither  primitive,  nor  cathoHc,  nor 
true.  We  have  shown  them  to  have  been  unknown 
to  the  Apostles  and  the  early  Christians,  unknown  to 
the  Catholic  Church  for  sixteen  centuries.  They 
were  emphatically  repudiated  by  the  Anglican  Re- 
formers and  the  men  who  framed  our  Prayer  Book 
and  other  formularies.  Though  frequently  proposed 
for  adoption,  since  the  days  of  the  Reformation, 
they  have  always  hitherto  been  consistently  re- 
jected by  Lawful  Authority.  These  principles  are 
wholly  incompatible  with  the  OFFICIAL  doctrines 
of  this  Church.  Modern  scholars,  out  of  every 
quarter  of  the  Christian  world,  have,  with  singular 
unanimity,  declared  them  to  be  contrary  to  all  the 
facts  which  historical  criticism  has  brought  to  light. 
The  simple  truth  is  that  this  "exclusive"  theory  of 
the  Episcopate  with  its  corollaries  regarding  the 
validity  of  non-episcopal  Ordination,  the  nature 
and  limits  of  the  Catholic  Church,  etc.,  is  popular 

ONLY     BECAUSE    OF    ITS    WEAKNESS,    SeductivC    Only 

because  so  flattering  to  the  vanity  of  Bishops.  It 
is  popular  because  it  is  so  alluring  to  the  false  pride 
of  many  others,  Clergy  and  Laymen  alike,  who  bow 
to  the  idol  of  ecclesiastical  aristocracy.  These 
men  would  regard  the  mere  outer  Succession  of  names 
and  persons,  as  of  more  value  than  the  inner  Suc- 
cession of  Faith  and  Doctrine.  They,  in  short, 
would  make  the  essence  or  "BEING"  of  a  Church 
to  consist  in  its  pedigree  rather  than  in  its  faith. 
Shall  we  allow  ourselves  to  be  controlled  by  senti- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       313 

ments  such  as  these?  Will  the  Bishops  of  this  Angli- 
can Communion, — the  first  to  agitate  the  cause  of 
Christian  Reunion,  the  first  to  arouse  the  conscience 
of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  sinfulness  of  our 
existing  divisions,  the  first  to  impress  the  entire 
Christian  world  with  the  solemn  duty  of  rising  above 
the  spirit  of  narrowness,  exclusiveness,  and  intoler- 
ance, of  nobly  and  heroically  sacrificing  all  mere 
worldly  and  denominational  interests  for  the  sake  of 
realizing  this  one  supreme  end  and  ideal,  will  they 
be  the  very  first  to  stultify  the  cause  by  yielding  to 
the  spirit  of  selfishness,  illiberality,  denomination- 
alism?  Will  they,  of  all  others,  be  the  first  to  insist 
upon  the  adoption  of  a  certain  principle,  not  an 
official  doctrine  of  our  communion,  remember,  but  the 
mere  shibboleth  of  a  party  within  it,  as  an  absolute 
ESSENTIAL,  a  sine  qua  non  to  such  reunion?  For 
one,  I  refuse  to  believe  it.  Be  assured,  O  Reader,  he 
who  writes  these  words  is  no  enemy  of  Episcopacy. 
He  who  writes  thus,  writes  not  in  bitterness,  but  in 
sorrow,  as  one  who  has  been  reared  from  his  youth 
up  in  the  Church.  He  has  known  and  loved  no  other 
communion,  aye,  he  is  one  who  knows  our  Episcopate 
too  well  to  believe  that  any  considerable  portion  of 
it  will  be  permanently  misled  by  this  present  agita- 
tion. He  is  one  who,  because  of  long  personal  in- 
timacy with  many  of  our  American  Bishops,  has 
too  much  admiration  and  respect  for  the  personnel 
of  that  body,  to  believe  that  any  great  number  of 
them  would  be  enticed  by  such  unworthy  motives. 
It  is  not  that  the  Bishops  of  this  communion  are 


314       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

really  actuated  by  such  motives,  but  nevertheless, 
when  a  particular  conception  of  the  episcopal  office 
is  honestly  believed  to  be  correct,  and  such  impression 
is  further  fostered  and  increased  by  the  encourage- 
ment of  many  clergy  and  laity  alike — and  when,  in 
addition  to  all  this,  it  happens  that  such  a  conception 
is,  simultaneously,  flattering  to  worldly  pride  and 
vanity,  it  stands  to  reason  that  it  will  not  be  easily 
surrendered.  This  is  precisely  what  we  find  to  be 
the  case.  The  facts  which  we  have  presented  in  the 
foregoing  pages  are  perfectly  clear  to  any  unbiassed 
mind.  The  fact  that  the  Episcopate  is  not  a  separate 
"Order"  from  the  Presbyterate,  the  fact,  attested 
even  by  "Catholic"  writers,  that  it  was  never  so 
regarded  until  "the  close  of  the  Sixteenth  Century, " 
with  all  that  that  view  involves  regarding  the  valid- 
ity of  non-episcopal  Ministries,  and  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  Church  Catholic,  would  never  be  seri- 
ously questioned,  were  it  not  that  it  further  entailed 
the  sacrifice  of  many  worldly  pretensions,  and  the 
virtual  loss  of  much  of  that  peculiar  glamour  that  so 
enshrouds  the  name  and  title  of  a  Bishop.  This 
may  sound  a  little  harsh,  but  we  all  know  that  it  is 
true.  Nor  is  it,  after  all,  our  Bishops  who  are  to 
blame.  They  would  never  accept  these  honors,  were 
they  not  largely  thrust  upon  them  by  numbers  of  our 
Church  people,  clergy  and  laity.  It  is  we,  ourselves, 
who  while  proclaiming  to  be  democratic,  find  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  curb  these  aristocratic  tend- 
encies within  the  Church,  that  are  chiefly  to  blame. 
The  "exclusive"  theory  of  the  Episcopate,  the  theory 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       315 

that  maintains  that  Episcopal  ordination  and  no 
other  is  valid,  and  acceptable  in  God's  sight,  the 
theory  that  maintains  (as  a  consequence)  that  no 
non-episcopal  communions,  no  Protestant  Bodies, 
are  real  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  theory 
which  would,  accordingly,  compel  us  to  assert,  by 
a  fundamental  change  in  our  official  title,  that  we  are 
the  only  real  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic  that  is 
native  to  America — that  theory,  we  assert,  is  one 
that  can  never  be  defended  logically  upon  purely 
theological  grounds,  and  is  the  outcome  of  a  spirit 
whose  character  is  only  too  obvious  to  those  who  have 
the  eyes  to  see.  While,  therefore,  we  have  attacked 
the  doctrines  of  the  "Catholic"  party  generally,  it  is 
only  their  doctrine  of  the  Episcopate,  with  the 
theories  naturally  resulting  from  it,  that  we  are 
peculiarly  concerned  with  here.  While  the  actual 
number  of  those  who  hold  all  the  characteristic  dog- 
mas of  the  "Catholic"  party  is,  perhaps,  compara- 
tively small,  yet  it  so  happens  that  those  who  are 
disposed  to  hold  more  or  less  extravagant  views  on 
the  subject  of  the  Episcopate,  are  by  no  means  con- 
find  to  this  small  coterie,  but  represent  a  very  large 
number  of  churchmen.  True,  the  typical  Low 
Churchman,  and  even  the  typical  Broad  Churchman, 
will  have  none  of  it.  With  very  few  exceptions  the 
entire  mass  of  Anglican  scholars  are  at  one  with  the 
rest  of  the  scholars  of  Christendom  in  repudiating 
its  underlying  principles.  In  spite  of  all  this,  it  is 
undeniably  true  that  quite  a  large  number  of  the 
more  moderate  High  Churchmen,  men  very  far  fronr 


3i6       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

representing  the  remaining  principles  of  the  "Cath- 
olic" party,  are  wedded  to  this  fiction.  It  is  this 
large  element  who  merely  by  their  failure  to  take  a 
decisive  stand  against  the  agitation  for  a  change  of 
name,  are,  unintentionally,  encouraging  and  pro- 
moting it.  In  fact,  the  vast  majority  of  our  clergy 
have  really  never  studied  the  question  at  all.  They  have 
simply  taken  for  granted  that  a  certain  theory  of  the 
Episcopate  and  the  Church  which  is  popular  at 
the  present  hour,  and  which  is  being  assiduously 
exploited,  is  both  official  and  true.  Acting  upon  this 
assumption,  they  proceed  to  preach  the  dogma  of 
"exclusive"  episcopacy,  and  to  vote  for  a  change  of 
name,  without  ever  once  stopping  to  consider  the 
real  consequences  which  flow  from  these  assump- 
tions. Ask  the  average  Churchman,  for  example,  if 
he  believes  in  the  Mass,  the  Confessional,  Prayers  to 
the  Virgin,  etc.,  and  he  will  answer  promptly  and 
decisively — "No!"  Ask  him,  generally,  if  he  be- 
lieves in  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  to  the 
validity  of  the  Ministry  of  a  Church,  he  will  again 
answer,  ' '  Yes ! "  Ask  him  yet  further,  if  such  a  view, 
then,  does  not  entirely  cut  off  all  non-episcopal 
churches  from  the  one  true  Catholic  Church  of 
Christ,  and  if  the  adoption  of  the  title  American 
Catholic  Church  would  not  mean  the  condemnation 
of  all  these  bodies  here  in  America,  and  nothing  else 
than  this,  his  only  answer  will  be  an  uncertain — 
"  Ye-es,  No-o !  Well,  I  don't  know. "  The  truth  is, 
we  repeat,  very  few,  even  of  the  clergy,  stop  to 
reason  out  the  consequences  of  this  doctrine  they  so 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       317 

thoughtlessly  accept,  and  so  glibly  proclaim.  They 
have  never  stopped  to  think  about  it  seriously,  at 
all.  Deep  down  in  their  hearts  they  have  a  feeling 
(and  we  wish  to  say  here  and  now,  a  very  commend- 
able feeling  it  is)  of  the  greatest  veneration  and  respect 
for  that  degree  of  the  Ministry  which,  aside  from  its 
just  claims  to  antiquity  and  universality,  has  done 
more  to  insure  the  unity  of  Christendom,  and  to 
guarantee  continuity  of  principles  within  the  Church 
than  any  other.  Deep  in  their  hearts  also  is  the 
feeling  that  great  injury  has  been  done  the  Church 
by  the  abandonment  of  the  Episcopate  in  many 
quarters.  Neither  can  they  forget  the  fact  that 
many  harsh,  unkind,  and  unjust  things  have  been 
said  about  it  by  those  who  have  repudiated  it.  All 
these  things  conspire  together  to  impress  them  with 
the  necessity  of  rising  in  its  defence  the  moment 
anything  wJiata'er  is  said  against  it,  whether  true  or 
untrue.  While  the  present  writer  yields  to  no  one 
in  reverence  and  respect  for  this  grand  old  in- 
stitution OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  and  has  long 
since  pledged  himself  to  defend  it  against  all  the 
false  aspersions  and  calumniations  of  its  enemies,  yet 
he  cannot  stoop  to  unreasonable  idolatry,  or  attempt 
to  justify  all  the  extravagant  claims  and  pretensions 
which  are  made  from  time  to  time  in  its  behalf. 
Particularly  when  he  sees  that  such  extravagant 
pretensions  form  the  one  and  only  serious  barrier 
to  Christian  reunion  to-day,  whereas  a  moderate  and 
reasonable  view  of  the  matter  cannot  be  seriously 
objected  to  by  any  denomination  in  Christendom. 


3i8       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

Considered  purely  from  a  practical  point  of  view,  the 
Episcopate  is  the  only  form  of  Church  Government 
that  the  entire  Christian  world  can  be  reasonably 
expected  to  agree  upon.  This  was  admitted  by  Dr. 
Briggs  and  others,  when  replying  to  the  overtures  for 
Church  Unity  set  forth  by  the  Anglican  bishops 
some  years  ago  in  the  so-called  Quadrilateral.  They 
expressed  their  pleasure  at  the  moderation  displayed 
by  the  English  Bishops  in  urging  the  adoption  of 
the  Historic  Episcopate  only  as  a  basis  of  organization, 
without  stipulating  the  acceptance  of  any  objection- 
able theories  respecting  it  as  the  exclusive  channel  of 
Divine  Grace.  In  short,  the  utterance  was  note- 
worthy in  that  instead  of  demanding  the  acceptance 
of  any  doctrine  of  an  Apostolic  Succession  through 
the  Episcopate  alone  as  essential  (because  necessary 
to  the  very  being  of  the  Church)  they  merely  asked 
for  the  adoption  of  the  Episcopate  as  the  Form  of 
Government  for  united  Christendom  without  further 
comment.  This  measure  was  eminently  expedient 
for  purely  practical  reasons.  That  this,  moreover, 
was  the  real  intention  of  the  framers  of  that  much 
debated  clause,  is  evident,  inasmuch  as,  aside  from 
the  fact  that  no  Doctrine  of  an  Apostolic  Succession 
through  the  Episcopate  alone  had  ever  been  set  forth  by 
the  Church,  ^  the  proposition  made  by  Bishop  Charles 

'  It  is  singular  with  what  persistency  the  idea  is  maintained  that 
the  Church  has  authorized  such  a  doctrine,  when  even  the  expression 
"Apostolic  Succession"  occurs  nowhere,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able 
to  ascertain,  in  any  of  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
but  once  only  in  our  American  Prayer  Book,  and  then  with  a  meaning 
the  very  reverse  of  that  which  "  Catholics"  attach  to  it.     It  is  the  " Min- 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       319 

Wordsworth  to  the  Conference,  that  in  view  of  the 
above  measure,  "we  should  now  recognize  the  full 
ministerial  standing  of  clergymen  presbyterially 
ordained,  providing  that  hereafter  all  their  ordina- 
tions should  be  by  Bishops,"  was  agreed  to  by  "ten 
out  of  the  twelve  members  of  the  Committee,"  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  adding  his  "very  full 
and  hearty  sympathy  with  it."  The  Conference 
refrained  only  from  actually  taking  this  last  step 
because  "being  only  a  Conference,  it  had  no  author- 
ity so  to  act."'  Moreover  Dr.  Vincent,  the  Assist- 
ant Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio,  who  appears  to  have 

titers" — not  the  Bishops — "of  Apostolic  Succession"  referred  to  in  the 
Office  of  Institution — the  one  office  of  the  Prayer  Book,  by  the  way, 
which  has  not  been  imposed  upon  the  Church  as  obligatory  (vide 
Canon  XXIX,  Conven.  1808).  It  was  only  after  an  attempt  made 
by  the  Connecticut  Churchmen  to  introduce  the  "Catholic"  doc- 
trine of  an  Apostolic  Succession  through  the  Episcopate  alone  had  been 
signally  defeated  (by  rejection  of  Art.  XI.  of  Proposed  "Seventeen 
Articles")  that  the  same  men  who  defeated  it  subsequently  allowed 
the  use  of  the  expression  "Apostolic  Succession"  in  the  Office  of 
Institution  provided  it  were  modified  by  the  words  "Ministers  of," 
instead  of  "Bishops  of."  This  was  wholly  acceptable  to  the  Low 
Churchmen,  who  with  their  leader — Bishop  White — openly  stood 
for  the  then  current  Anglican  opinion  that  all  Ministers  who  were 
faithful  to  the  true  teaching  of  the  Apostles  were  the  Successors  of  the 
Apostles,  whether  Episcopally  ordained  or  not.  It  was  the  very 
men  who  stood  for  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordination  (c.  Bp. 
'UHiite's  Case  of  the  American  Churches)  who  permitted  this  phrase. 
For  a  full  account  of  the  matter,  the  reader  is  referred  to  a  work  by 
the  author  entitled  Apostolic  Succession  and  the  Problem  of  Unity. 
'  The  last  Pan- Anglican  Conference  gave  further  approval  to  what 
was  substantially  the  same  proposition  regarding  the  union  of  the 
Anglican  and  Presbyterian  Churches  in  Australia.  How  can 
'Catholics"  reconcile  such  utterances  with  their  theories  of  the 
Episcopate  and  Apostolic  Succession? 


320       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

been  In  a  position  to  know  the  mind  of  the  Committee, 
openly  assured  the  pubHc  shortly  after  that  this  was 
the  intent  of  the  clause.  Says  he:  "Nothing  is  said 
here  of  Episcopacy  as  of  Divine  institution  or 
necessity,  nothing  of  "Apostolic  Succession,"  noth- 
ing of  a  Scriptural  origin  or  a  doctrinal  nature  in  the 
institution.  It  is  expressly  proposed  here  only  in  its 
'  historical  character '  and  as  '  locally  adapted  to  the 
varying  needs  of  God's  people.'  All  else,  unless 
it  be  its  Scripturalness,  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  to 
which  this  Church  HAS  never  formally  committed 
HERSELF.  Her  position  here  is  the  same  broad  and 
generous  one  taken  in  the  Preface  to  her  Ordinal. 
That  phrase,  '  the  Historic  Episcopate, '  was  de- 
liberately CHOSEN  AS  DECLARING  NOT  A  DOCTRINE 
BUT  A  FACT,  AND  AS  BEING  GENERAL  ENOUGH  FOR  ALL 

VARIANTS."  (Cited  in  Church  Reunion  on  Basis  of 
Lambeth  Conference  Propositions,  p.  48.)  There 
can  be  no  doubt  whatever,  therefore,  that  this  was 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  and  the  cordial  response  of 
Dr.  Briggs  and  other  prominent  divines  to  the  pro- 
position on  this  understanding,  fully  evidences  what 
was,  and  is,  the  attitude  of  Protestant  leaders,  to- 
wards a  rational  and  sane  conception  of  the  Episco- 
pate. Had  it  not  been  for  the  agitation  immediately 
aroused  in  "Catholic"  circles  lest  this  broad  and  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  matter  should  be  allowed  to 
pass,  it  Is  quite  safe  to  say  the  effect  of  the  famous 
Quadrilateral  would  have  been  far  reaching.  As  it 
was,  the  Protestant  Churches,  generally,  dropped 
all  further  consideration  of  the  matter,   until  the 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       321 

Episcopal  Church  could  give  official  assurance  that 
nothing  further  was  demanded  than  what  the  plain 
wording  of  the  clause  implied.  In  short,  Brethren 
of  the  Anglican  Communion,  you  hold  the  key  to  the 
solution  of  one  of  the  most  difficult  as  well  as  one  of 
the  most  important  problems  confronting  the  Church 
Catholic  to-day.  Only  exercise  a  little  common- 
sense  moderation,  and  commendable  Christian  liber- 
ahty,  a  Hberality,  remember,  which  involves  the 
sacrifice  of  no  principle  whatever,  the  surrender  of 
no  essential  dogma  of  the  Faith,  nor  even  a  single 
OFFICIAL  doctrine  of  your  Church.  Only  exercise 
such  a  commendable  spirit  and,  with  the  probable 
exception  of  the  Roman  Communion,  you  may  ulti- 
mately bring  the  whole  Christian  World  into  one 
common  organization.  Whereas,  once  lose  your 
heads,  and  be  led  away  by  vain  dreams  of  "exclusive  " 
authority  and  catholicity,  and  all  hope  of  organic 
unity  is  lost.  The  one  view  makes  for  Church 
Unity,  because,  while  sacrificing  no  essential 
PRINCIPLE,  it  simultaneously  recognizes  every  de- 
nomination as  a  part  of  the  Church  Catholic  which 
it  seeks  to  unite.  The  other  places  an  insuperable 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  such  Unity  by  insisting  upon 
a  principle  as  indispensable,  which  can  never  be 
shown  such,  and  which  simultaneously  excludes  at 
least  one  fourth  of  those  "who  profess  and  call  them- 
selves Christians"  from  membership  in  the  Church 
Catholic.  We  repeat:  to  consider  these  pages  an 
attack  upon  Episcopacy  per  se,  is  wholly  to  misunder- 
stand, or  else  intentionally  to  misrepresent  us.     We 


323       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

are  not  attacking  anything  that  is  really  true  and 
valuable  in  this  institution,  but  only  the_false  and 
superficial  accretions  which  have  been  from  time  to 
time  added  to  it.  In  fact,  we  are  not  attacking 
Episcopacy  but  Prelacy,  not  attacking  the  reasonable 
and  just  claims  that  it  has  a  right  to  offer,  but  only 
those  unjust  pretensions  too  often  made  in  its  behalf, 
which  can  never  be  substantiated.  The  Episcopate 
proper  is  of  too  great  value  and  importance  to  the 
Church,  possesses  far  too  much  genuine  worth,  ever 
to  need  to  be  bolstered  up  by  such  unscholarly  and 
utterly  indefensible  pretensions.  Indeed,  it  is  these 
very  false,  superfluous,  and  unnecessary  claims  that 
have  created  the  present  antipathy  towards  it  upon 
the  part  of  the  Protestant  Churches  generally. 
Such  EXAGGERATIONS  are  not  going  to  secure  victory 
for  it,  but  only  ruin — simply  because  they  are  ex- 
aggerations— simply  because  they  are  narrow,  intoler- 
ant, exclusive,  and  are  further  well  known  to  be 
UNTRUE.  On  the  other  hand,  a  moderate,  rational, 
common-sense  view  of  the  Episcopate,  such  as  the 
English  Reformers  maintained,  and  such  as  this 
Church  has  ever  officially  recognized,  is  impreg- 
nable. To  put  it  squarely,  if  you  are  going  to  insist 
that  the  Episcopate  is,  by  Divine  appointment,  an 
absolute  essential  to  the  very  being  or  existence 
of  the  Church  so  that  all  those  bodies  that  are  without 
it  are  entirely  cut  off  from  the  catholic  church, 
and  cannot  be  recognized  as  parts  of  it,  you  are  going 
to  make  a  claim:  which  (i)  You  can  never  demonstrate 
to  be  true;  which  (2)  Is  contrary  to  the  official 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       323 

teaching  of  your  own  Church;  which  (3)  Will  never 
be  admitted  by  Protestants  generally,  because  satis- 
fied that  it  is  wholly  false;  and  which  (4)  Because  of 
the  obstacle  it  presents  to  Christian  Unity,  will 
largely  place  upon  you  the  awful  responsibility  of 
continuing  the  spirit  of  schism  in  the  Church  Uni- 
versal. On  the  other  hand,  if  you  will  defend  the 
Episcopate  upon  the  reasonable  ground:  that  (i) 
No  matter  what  view  may  be  taken  of  its  origin,  it 
unquestionably   possesses   divine   authority;   that 

(2)  It  is  that  form  of  Government  which  is  historic 
and  was  prevalent  down  to  the  Reformation;  that 

(3)  It  continues  still  to  be  the  prevailing  form  of 
Government  in  the  Christian  world;  that  (4)  This 
antiquity  and  universality  naturally  demand  a  con- 
sideration and  respect,  to  which  no  other  form  of 
government  can  lay  claim;  that  (5)  Experience  has 
proved  it  to  be  the  most  expedient  for  insuring  stabil- 
ity, order,  unity,  and  continuity  in  the  Church;  that 
(6)  The  further  fact  that  it  is  even  at  this  day  the 
form  under  which  the  majority  of  Christian  people 
are  living,  makes  it  the  only  form  of  government  that 
it  can  reasonably  be  expected  the  Christian  World 
can  agree  upon.  If  you  will  defend  it  upon  these 
grounds  asking  Protestant  Churches  to  adopt  it,  not 
because  it  is  a  sine  qua  non,  and  their  own  forms  with- 
out validity,  but  because  it  is  the  only  form  that  has 
prevailed,  that  is  really  Historic,  that  has,  speaking 
generally,  been  characteristic  of  the  Church  Universal 
throughout  its  entire  History,  and  because  it  is  for 
many  other  reasons  the  best  and  the  most  expedient. 


324       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  the  only  one  that,  from  a  practical  standpoint, 
can  be  agreed  upon,  you  will  disarm  prejudice,  will 
win  commendation,  and  whether  successful  or  not  will 
at  least  remove  any  charge  of  narrowness  and  ex- 
clusiveness  from  us,  and  place  the  responsibility  of 
further  schism  elsewhere.  On  the  other  hand,  to 
advocate  a  change  of  Name,  and  the  adoption  of  the 
title  "The  American  Catholic  Church,"  on  the 
ground  that  the  latter  Is  ''comprehensive'' — and 
will  ''make  for  unity,"  etc.,  is  simply  ridiculous. 
Think  of  it!  The  title  which  unchurches  more  than 
one  hundred  millions  of  our  fellow  Christians,  lauded 
as  ' '  comprehensive, ' '  exploited  as  an  eirenicon!  Nor 
could  the  immense  loss  sustained  upon  this  side  be 
compensated  by  any  gain  upon  the  other.  For  such 
action  would  be  as  useless  in  its  overtures  to  Rome, 
as  it  would  be  insulting  to  our  Protestant  brethren. 
For  be  it  remembered  by  all  who  are  beguiled  by  such 
visions,  that  reunion  with  Rome  can  never  be  at- 
tained by  any  mere  abandonment  of  our  Protestant 
title,  but  only  by  complete  submission  to  all  her  pre- 
tensions— in  short,  only  by  unconditional  surrender. 
lie  who  does  not  know  this,  simply  does  not  know  Rome. 
Right  here,  we  venture  to  make  a  prediction,  which 
we  sincerely  hope  may  not  be  true,  but  which  we  can- 
not persuade  ourselves  to  believe  is  false.  Brethren 
of  the  Anglican  Communion,  it  may  be  that  before 
these  words  are  printed  the  principles  for  which  the 
martyrs  of  England  laid  down  their  lives,  those 
beacon-fires  of  the  Reformation  which  old  Hugh 
Latimer  asserted  even  with  his  dying  breath  should 


WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS       325 

never  be  extinguished, — those  Protestant  ideals 
and  doctrines  then  stamped  upon  the  Church  of 
England,  and  ever  since  official  in  this  Communion 
— Ay!  Those  Protestant  Principles  now  falsely  de- 
nounced as  uncatholic,  illiberal,  obsolete,  will  be 
abundantly  vindicated  to  a  shocked  and  startled 
world.  We  say  no  more.  He  who  hath  the  eyes  to 
see,  will  see  and  comprehend.  We  speak  here  only 
our  convictions.  We  make  no  pretension  to  pro- 
phetic vision.  It  may  be  that  we  are  mistaken. 
If  so,  we  believe  we  are  mistaken  only  as  to  the  time, 
not  as  to  the  fact.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  realization 
or  non-realization  of  such  an  event  in  no  wise  affects 
the  argument  set  forth  in  these  pages.  Under  any 
circumstances,  the  truth  of  these  principles  remains 
unchanged,  and  the  importance  of  their  enunciation 
continues  imperative.  In  a  word,  then.  Brethren 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  we  have  reached 
the  parting  of  the  ways.  The  principles  of  the  Re- 
formation and  the  principles  of  the  "Catholic" 
party  are  admitted  upon  all  sides  to  be  mutually 
exclusive.  The  former  are  official  in  this  Church, 
the  latter  are  not ;  though  their  adherents  are  seeking 
earnestly  to  substitute  them  for  the  former,  to  have 
them  recognized  as  official.  We  cannot  longer  defer 
the  issue.  You  are  compelled,  this  day,  to  choose 
between  the  two.  There  is  no  straddling  a  contradic- 
tion. You  must  choose  between  Protestantism  and 
pseudo-catholicism ;  between  the  creed  of  the  English 
Reformers  and  the  creed  of  John  Henry  Newman; 
between  the  ideal  which  led  the  former  out  of  Rome, 


326       WHERE  THE  CHURCH  STANDS 

and  the  ideal  which  led  the  latter  into  Rome ;  between 
the  doctrines  which  have  been  official  and  authorita- 
tive in  this  Church  from  the  beginning,  and  those 
which  were  officially  and  authoritatively  condemned 
by  your  Church  at  the  time  of  the  Oxford  Movement ; 
between  a  view  of  the  Episcopate  which  is  reasonable, 
defensible,  and  liberal,  and  one  which  is  unreasonable, 
indefensible,  and  intolerant;  between  one  which  is 
comprehensive  enough  to  recognize  all  Christian 
Bodies  (the  Roman  included)  as  valid  branches  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  other  which  is  narrow 
enough  to  "unchurch"  all  that  have  not  the  Historic 
Episcopate;  between  an  existing  title  which,  because 
it  is  protestant  only  against  all  illiberal,  intolerant, 
and  exclusive  theories  respecting  the  limits  of  the 
Church  Universal,  is,  for  that  reason,  protestant  only 
that  it  may  be  liberal,  broad,  and  truly  catholic  in 
its  conception  of  the  Church,  and  a  proposed  title 
which,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  "Catholic"  only 
that  it  might  narrow  the  confines  of  the  Church 
Universal,  and  exclude  one  fourth  the  Christian 
World  from  membership  therein.  In  short,  you  have 
to  choose  between  denominational  pride  and  Church 
Unity,  between  bearing  the  arrogant  title  of  an  ex- 
clusive ecclesiastical  set  (The  American  Catholic 
Church)  and  becoming  the  peacemakers  for  universal 
Christendom. 


INDEX 


Act  XIII.  Elizabeth,  90,  107 
Act  of  Uniformity  (XIV.  Carol. 

II.)  recog.  For.  Ref.  Churches 

and   their   Ministries,   85-96; 

108-109;     Acted     upon     by 

Charles  II.,  96 
Admission  of  For.  Ref.  Clergy 

without  re-ordination,  85-96; 

106,107 
i^lfric,  Canons  of,  include  Bishop 

and  Presbyter  in  same  Order, 

262;    Pastoral     of,     includes 

Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  same 

Order,  262 
Aerius,   on  identity  of  Bishop 

and  Presbyter,  256 
Aix,      Synod      of,      pronounces 

Bishop    and    Presbyter    one 

Order,  259,  260 
Albertus  Magnus,  declares  Bish- 
op and  Priest  same  Order,  263 
Alcuin,  on  identity  Bishop  and 

Presbyter,  259 
Alexander  Alensis,   on  identity 

Bishop  and  Presbyter,  263 
Alexandria,  Church  of,  practised 

Presbyterian  Ordination,  248, 

249,  254,  258 
Alford,    Dean,    on    Commission 

given  Matt,    xxviii.,  19,  298, 

299 
Allen,  A.  V.  G.,  on  Episcopate, 

285    _ 
Amalarius,     substantiates     Je- 
rome 's  Statement  as  to  Alex. 

Ordination,  260 
Ambrose,    on    identity    Bishop 

and  Presbyter,  252 
American    Cathohc,    Signif.    of 

title,  6  ei  seq.,  324 


Ancyra,  Council  of,  Canon  on 
Ordination,  250,  251,  287,  291 

Andrews,  Bishop,  raises  objec- 
tion at  Consec.  Scot.  Bishops, 
47 ;  recog.  non-episcopal 
Churches,  56;  80,  8r,  82 

Anselm,  on  identity  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  262 

Antonius  de  Rosellis,  believed 
in  Presbyt.  Ordination,  268 

Apostles,  professed  themselves 
Presbyters,  234-238;  ordained 
in  conjunc.   with  Presbyters, 

236-238;  A. so  called,  240, 

note 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  decl.  Episco- 
pate not  an  Order,  265 

Arnold,  opposes  "cathohc"  the- 
ory, 285 

Articles  of  Religion,  Thirty- 
Nine,  their  authority,  177  et 
seq.;  seventeen  proposed,  319, 
note 

Assembly,  Second  Resolution  of, 
108,  114 

Augustine,  St.,  on  identity  of 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  256, 257 

Augustinus,     Antonius,     views' 
respec.  Chorepiscopi,  263 

Authority,  Sovereign,  vested  in 
entire  body  of  the  Church 
(See  Congregation) 

Babington,  Bishop,  recog,  non- 
episcopal  Churches,  56,  108 

Bacon,  Lord,  on  Church  Govern- 
ment, 216,  217 

Bancroft,  Archb.,  pronounces 
Presbyt.  Ordination  valid,  47, 
56,  59,  80,  81,  108,  114;  final 


327 


328 


INDEX 


Bancroft,  Archb. — Continued 
att.  towards  Episc.  explained, 

275, 277 

Baptism,  admission  into  Catho- 
lic Church,  14  ei  seq.;  106; 
Lay,  authorities  quoted,  18 
et  seq.;  106 

Baxter,  remarks  on  Church 
Government,  49 

Bede,  Bishop  and  Presb3rter  one 
Order,  259 

Bidding  Prayer,  31,  32;  refers 
to  Church  of  Scotland,  40 
et  seq, 

Bilson,  recog.  non-episcopal 
churches,  56,  108 

Bingham,  on  re-ordination,  88, 
89,  94;  on  Chorepiscopi,  257, 
note;  263,  264 

Bishop  and  Presbjrter,  same 
Order,  61,  234-238;  testimony 
of  Ordinal,  64-80;  B.  as  Sue. 
Apos.  288,  289;  295,  note. 
(See  also,  Episcopacy,  Episco- 
pate, Order,  and  Concluding 
Chapter,  240-326) 

Blunt,  J.  H.,  on  Lay  Baptism, 
18-21;  on  Ch.  of  Scotland,  41 
et  seq.;  Consec.  Scot.  Bishops, 
48;  on  iden.  Order  Bish.  and 
Pr.,  51  et  seq.;  239,  273 

Boardman,  Dr.  Henry  A.,  testi- 
fies as  to  view  of  Reformers, 
291 ;  Episcopacy  an  evolution, 
291 

Boethius,  remarks  on  Culdees 
of  Scotland,  255,  257 

Bonaventura,  declares  Episco- 
pate not  an  Order,  264 

Bradford,  John,  recog.  non- 
episcopal  churches,  56,  107 

Bramhall,  Archb.,  his  recog. 
non-epis.  churches,  56;  tes. 
as  to  official  attitude  Ch. 
England,  81,  82;  108,  278; 
on  re-ordination,  87,  88,  94 

Bridges,  Dr.  John,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56 ;  on  Church 
Government,  213,  214;  Ch. 
as  reservoir  of  Divine  Power, 
297,  note 


Briggs,  Dr.  Charles  A.,  on  recog. 
Presbyt.  Ordination,  36,  37; 
origin  of  Episcopate,  78,  note, 
285,  288,  289;  remarks  on 
Lambeth  Quadrilateral,  318 

British  Critic,  on  necessity  of 
Episcopate,  9,  129 

Brown,  Bishop  W.  M.,  cited, 
269 

Browne,  on  Thirty-Nine  Articles, 
cited,  247,  248,  256,  257,  258, 
259,  260,  262,  263 

Bucer,  on  ident.  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  273 

Bugenhagen,  on  ident.  Bishop 
and  Presbyter,  273 

Bull,  Unam  Sanctum,  207 

Burnet,  Bishop,  Admission  of 
non-epis.  clergy,  34;  recog. 
non-epis.  churches,  56,  108; 
on  re-ordination,  87,  94;  re- 
ference to  Pope  Eugenius, 
267;  his  interpretation  Art 
XXIIL,  300,  301,  note 

Cajetan,  Cardinal,  Bishop  and 
Presbyt.  same  Order,  268 

Calderwood,  on  estab.  Episco- 
pacy in  Scotland,  47 

Calfhill,         recog.  non-epis. 

churches,  56,  107 

Calvin,  on  ident.  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  272,  273 

Canon,  30;  Ch.  of  England,  38 

Canons  Ecclesiastical,  189;  on 
Church  Government,  224 

Carrick,  J.  C,  Culdees  of  Scot- 
land, 256;  Wychf,  265 

"Catholic"  Movement,  real 
purpose  of,  146-154;  Prin- 
ciples, condemned  by  author- 
ity, 282,  et  seq.;  View  of  Epis- 
copate in  conflict  w.  Modern 
Scholarship,  284,  et  seq. 

Catholicity,  true,  necessarily 
Protestant,  161;  C.  of  Church 
of  Eng.,  180,  et  seq.  and  Pro- 
testantism, not  antithetical, 
184 

"Catholics"  vs.  Anglican  Re- 
formers, 184,  et  seq. 


INDEX 


329 


Celestine  V.,  Pope,  empowers 
a  Friar  to  ordain,  264 

Channel  Islands,  clergy  of,  not 
episcopally  ordained,  95 

Cliillingworth,  on  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  108 

Chorepiscopi,  probably  Presby- 
ters, 251,  note;  263 

Chrysostom,  on  Bishop  and 
Priest,  256,  285,  289 

Church,  a,  object  of,  124  et 
seq. 

Church  Catholic,  the,  declara- 
tions concerning,  29  et  seq.; 
90;      Visible    and     Invisible, 

133-137 

Churches,  the  Protestant,  re- 
cog,  by  name,  107,  108,  271 

Claget,  Dr.,  102 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  on  ident. 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  247 

Clemens  Romanus,  on  ident. 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  240, 
285,  289 

Commission  (Matt,  xxvni.,  19) 
given  to  entire  body  of  Church, 

299 

Communion,  with  non-epis. 
churches,  sanctioned,  163- 
165;  Archb.  Usher  on,  164; 
Cosin  on,  164,  165 

Conference,  the  Pan-Anglican, 
on  recog.  Pres.  Ordination, 
319,  note 

Confessions,  of  Protestant 
Churches,  273 

Congregation  the,  the  reservoir 
of  Divine  Power,  247,  267, 
293-311;  P.  E.  Church  on, 
299-311;  C.  not  a  function 
of  the  Ministry,  294;  302  et 
seq. 

Cooper,  Bishop,  recog,  non-epis. 
churches,  60;  on  Church  Gov- 
ernment, 214;  Church  the 
reser\'oir  of  Divine  Power,  297 

Cosin,  Bishop,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  98-101;  their 
Sacraments  valid,  164,  165 

Cosin,  Dr.  Richard,  Admission 
of  non-epis.  clergy,  34,   108  ; 


integrity  of  Protestant 
Churches,39 ;  Ch.  Government, 
214;  Church  the  reservoir  of 
Divine  Power,  297,  ftote 

Cranmer,  Archb.,  validity  of 
non-epis.  churches  and  their 
Orders,  56,  107;  Sermon  on 
the  Keys,  116,  117;  on  ident. 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  119, 
120,  note 

Cudworth,  on  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  108 

Culdecs,  practised  Presbyterian 
Ordination,  255,  266 

Cyprian,  docs  not  question  valid- 
ity of  Presbyt.  ordination, 
250;  his  testimony  opposed 
to  "catholic"  theory,  289 

Dalcho,  Rev.  Frederick,  his 
Hist.  Church  in  South  Carolina 
cited,  303,  note 

Davenant,  Bishop,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56^  108 

Development  in  Theology,  195 
et  seq.;  false  ideas  concerning, 
198-205;  Newman's  theory  of, 
200,  202,  203 

Discipline,  signifies  Church  Gov- 
ernment, and  is  alterable,  218- 
225;  Preface  to  Pr.  Book  on, 
217-219;  306-31 1;  Canons  of 
Church  of  England  on,  224. 
{See  also,  Congregation,  The, 
as  Reservoir  of  Power) 

Dix,  Dr.,  on  necessity  of  the 
Episcopate,  10 

Doctrinal  attitude  of  Ch.  of 
Eng.  not  changed  at  Restora- 
tion {see  Revisers  1662,  and 
Revision  of  1662)  nor  subse- 
quently, 279  et  seq. 

Doctrines,  necess.  to  be  believed, 
207,  208;  no  d.  of  exclus. 
Episc,  208 

Downham,  Dr.  George,  recog. 
non-epis.  churches,  56 

Duchesne,  Mgr.,  views  regard- 
ing the  Episcopate,  285 

Durandus,  on  ident.  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  265 


330 


INDEX 


Ecclesia  Anglicana,  a  Protestant 
Church,  1 66  et  seq.,  true  catho- 
licity of,  1 80 

Ecumenical  Councils,  how  re- 
garded by  Anglican  Reform- 
ers, 187,  188 

Ede,  Dr.,  Dean  of  Worcester, 
respec.  Church  of  Scotland 
in  1604,  40 

EUendorf,  opposes  "catholic" 
theory,  285,  287,  288 

Elmacinus,  George,  confirms 
statement  of  Eutychius,  re- 
spect. Alex.  Ordin.,  264 

Encyclopcedia  Britannica on  "Or- 
ders in  Church  of  England," 
51,281 

Epiphanius,  on  equality  of 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  252 

Episcopacy,  its  estab.  in  Scot- 
land, 40  et  seq.;  terms  of  estab., 
47 ;  how  it  should  be  defended, 
120;  if  essential  at  all,  essen- 
tial to  personal  salvation, 
124  et  seq.;  not  essential  to 
validity  of  Sacraments,  60, 
118,  165;  exclus.  pretensions 
of,  indefensible,  206-209;  de- 
velopment argument  concern- 
ing, 209,  210;  testimony  of 
Fathers,  concerning,  211;  in 
the  light  of  mod.  scholarship, 
284  et  seq.;  unanimity  of  schol- 
ars as  to  its  origin,  292,  293. 
(See  also,  Bishop,  Episcopate) 

Episcopate,  an  Office,  not  an 
Order,  231  et  seq.;  273,  274  et 
seq.;  "catholic"  view  of,  vs. 
view  of  Anglic.  Reformers, 
Fathers,  and  Schoolmen,  231; 
E.  in  the  New  Testament, 
232;  theory  of  its  necessity, 
origin  of,  270;  never  regarded 
as  an  Order  till  i6th  Cent., 
61,  239,  262,  264,  268,  273, 
274,  286,  314;  mod.  scholars 
agreed  as  to  its  origin,  292, 
293;  mod.  scholars  agree  with 
Anglic.  Ref.,  311;  Historic 
E.  vs.  Apos.  Sue,  318  e^  seq., 
320 


Erasmus,  respect,  origin  of  Epis- 
copate, 269 

Estius,  views  regarding  Chor- 
episcopi,  263 

Eugenius,  Pope,  views  respect. 
Orders,  266,  267 

Eutychius,  respect,  ordination 
at  Alexandria,  260,  261,  292 

Exclusiveness,  "cathoUc"  vs. 
Puritan,  117,  iiS 

Fagius,  on  ident.  Order,  Bishop 
and  Priest,  273 

Fairbaim,  view  of  Episcopate, 
285 

Field,  Dean,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  108;  concerning 
Chorepiscopi,  263 

FirmiHan,  Bishop  of  Cassarea, 
on  ident.  Order,  248 

Fisher,  George  P.,  on  origin  of 
Episcopate,  78,  note;  251; 
opposes  "catholic"  theory, 
285 

Fleetwood,  admission  of  non- 
epis.  clergy,  34,  35;  108 

Forbes,  Dr.,  respect.  Chorepis- 
copi, 257 

Forms,  of  organization,  why 
essential?,  123 

Fulke,  Dr.,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  107 

Gallagher,  Mason,  his  work 
Prim.  Eiren.  cited,  257,  258, 
259,  260,  261,  262,  264,  266, 
268,  287,  288 

Geikie,  on  commission  of  Matt, 
xxviii.,  v.  19,  298,  299 

German  Protestants,  acknowl- 
edged a  branch  of  Cathol. 
Church,  32 

Gieseler,  respect,  the  Episco- 
pate, 285,  287 

Goode,  On  Orders,  quoted,  40, 
56,  note;  265,  268 

Gore,  Canon  Chas.  his  criticism 
of  Jerome,  249;  on  origin  of 
Episc,  288 

Government,  ecclesiastical,  no 
one  form  prescribed  in  Holy 


INDEX 


331 


Government — Continued 

Scripture,  212-217;  295  et 
scq.;  Puritan  view  of,  216; 
295,  296;  and  Discipline, 
217-225 

Gratian,  asserts  Chorepiscopi 
were  Presbyters,  263 

Grindal,  Archb.,  recog.  Presby- 
terian Church  and  Orders,  33, 
107,  114,  163 

Guihelmus  Parisiensis,  asserts 
that  Episcopate  depends  on 
Presbytcrate,  264 

Gwynne,  Rev,  Walker,  on  Pro- 
testant "'Sects,"  II 

Halifax,  Lord,  mistakes  of  the 

Reformation,  147 
Hall,  Bishop,  Joseph,  on  admis- 
sion  of   non-epis.   clergy,   34, 
36;  56,  89,  90,  108 
Hallam,  on  admission  of    non- 
epis.  clergy,  34,  106 
Hammond,    respect,    the    Com- 
mission in  Matt,  xxviii.,  v.  19, 
298,  299 
Handbook  of  Information,  A ,  on 
title  "American  Catholic,"  7 
Hardwick,  Hist,  of  the  Articles, 

quoted,  300 
Harnack,  on  origin  of  the  Episco- 
pate, 78,  note;  opposes  "catho- 
lic" theory,  285,  288 
Hatch,  on  origin  of  Episcopate, 
78,   note;  285,   292,   293;   re- 
marks on   Cyprian,   250;   on 
Presbyterian  C)rdination,  250, 
252,  256,  288;  Church  as  the 
reservoir  of  Divine  Power,  296 
Herzog,  on  the  Episcopate,  285, 

287 
Hilary,  the  Deacon,  on  identity 
of  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  252, 
285,  292 
Hippolytus,   Canons  of,   reveal 
original    identity    of    Order, 

247,  248 

Hobart,  Bishop,  on  necessity  of 
Episcopate,  10,  141 

Hodges,  Dean,  opposes  "catho- 
lic" theory,  285 


Holy  Catholic  Church,  the 
official  utterances  regarding 
it,  14  et  seg. 

Hooker,  on  Lay  Baptism,  18; 
recog.  non-epis.  churches,  56, 
107;  asserts  no  one  form  of 
Government  necessary,  215, 
216;  the  Church  as  reservoir 
of  Divine  Power,  296,  297 

Hooper,  Bishop,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56.  107;  inter- 
pretation of  Art.  XXin.,  300 

Hore,  A.  H.,  the  Revision  of 
1662,  98,  note 

Hort,  on  the  Episcopate,  285 

Hugo,  St.  Victor,  on  ident.  of 
Orders,  262 

Hunter,  Rev.  E.  W.,  on  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  1 1 

Huss,  denies  that  Episcopate  is 
an  Order,  266 

Ignalian  Epistles,  their  testi- 
mony respect.  Bishops  and 
Presbyters,  240-243;  authen- 
ticity of,  243,  note;  contain 
no  evid.  for  exclusive  theory 
of  Episcopate,  244,  note 

Ignatius,  his  writings  antago- 
nistic to  "catholic"  theory, 
289 

Innocent  VIII.,  Pope,  permits 
Abbots  to  ordain,  268 

Institution  of  a  Christian  Man, 
the,  on  identity  of  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  78,  note;  185;  Epis- 
copacy not  essential,  270,  271 

Invocation,  of  our  Lady,  158; 
of  Saints,  158  et  seq.,  187  _ 

Irenaeus,  his  testimony  misun- 
derstood, 245;  assumes  iden- 
tity Bishops  and  Presbyters, 
246,  247 

Isidore  Hispalensis,  said  to 
have  asserted  ident.  of  Orders, 
259 

Jacob,  Dr.  G.  A.,  opposes 
"catholic"  theory,  285;  Epis- 
copate an  evolution,  290 


332 


INDEX 


Jerome,  on  identity  of  Bishop 
and  Presbyter,  253-255;  Pres- 
byterian ordination  at  Alex- 
andria, _  254,  292;  opposes 
"catholic"  theory,  289;  quoted 
by  Jacob,  290,  291 

Jewel,  Bishop,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  60;  on  signif. 
term  "Order,"  67  et  seq.,  107; 
Catholicity  of  Church  of  Eng- 
land, 180;  Defence  of  Apology 
quoted,  256,  257 

Jonas,  Justus,  opposes  "catho- 
lic" theory,  as  to  Bishops 
and  Presbyters,  273 

Keble,  Rev.  John,  on  admission 
of  non-epis.  clergy,  34,  37,  106; 
testifies  as  to  practice  of  Re- 
formers, 60,  118,  273,  274; 
and   Oxford    Movement,   282 

Kikuyu  Conference,  157  et  seq. 

Latimer,  Bishop,  respect,  non- 
epis.  churches,  56 

Laud,  Archb.,  recog.  validity 
non-epis.  ordination,  57,  108; 
recog.  integrity  non-epis. 
Churches,  57,  108;  reproved  by 
Univ.  of  Oxford,  58,  277,  279 

Laying  on  of  Hands,  the,  Rite 
not  invariably  practised,  258. 
See  also,  note 

Leighton,  Archb.,  views  on 
Episcopacy,  48-50;  on  re- 
ordination,  8y,  94 

Liberatus,  Breviarum  of,  cited 
on  Ordination  at  Alexandria, 
.258 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  on  origin  of 
Episcopate,  78,  note;  257, 
285,  292;  opposes  "catholic" 
theory,  285;  identity  of  Bishop 
and  Priest,  285,  286;  288; 
identity  never  questioned  till 
Reformation,  2 86,  L.  versus 
Zanzibar,  2S6;  287;  Church 
as  reservoir  of  Power,  298 

Lindsay,  on  Episcopate,  285;  on 
Commission  in  Matt,  xxviii., 
V.  19,  298,  299 


Littledale,  Dr.,  his  denunciation 
of  the  Anglican  Reformers, 
.147 

Living  Church,  The,  Art.  on. 
"Bidding  Prayer  "  and  "Ch.  of 
Scotland,"  40,  ei  seq;  Annual, 
Art.  on  the  "  Catholic  Church, " 
122,  123 

Lollards,  the,  endorsed  Presby- 
terian Ordination,  266 

Lombard,  Peter,  on  identity  of 
Orders,  263 

Luidger,  practised  Presbyterian 
Ordination,  259 

Luther,  on  identity  of  Order, 
272,  273 

Macaulay,  on  admission  of  non- 
epis.  clergy,  34,  36,  106 

Malabar  Christians,  held  Bishop 
and  Priest  same  Order,  268, 
269 

Manipulus  Curatorum,  declares 
Episcopate  not  an  Order,  266 

Manning,  Cardinal,  and  Oxford 
Movement,  282,  283 

Manning,  Dr.  W.  T.,  on  the 
proposed  title,  9 

Mark,  St.,  a  Presbyter  only, 
ordains,  290 

Marsiglio  of  Padua,  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  one  Order,  265 

Maskell,  Rev.  William,  on  ident. 
Bishop  and  Priest,  239,  262, 
264,  268,  274 

Mason,  Archdeacon  Francis,  re- 
cog. non-epis.  churches,  56, 108 

McGiffert,  attitude  toward  Epis- 
copacy, 285 

McNeal  (see  Thatcher) 

Melanchthon,  on  identity  of 
Order,  273 

Ministry,  the,  a  function  of  the 
Church,  294,  302  et  seq. 

Mombasa,  Bishop  of,  accused 
of  heresy,  162  et  seq. 

Morrison,  John,  his  orders  re- 
cognized, 33,  114 

Mosheim,  quoted,  256 

Mossman,  Thos.  W.,  Episco- 
pacy an  evolution,  289,  290 


INDEX 


333 


Moule,       opposes       "catholic" 

theory,  285 
Myconius,  on  identity  of  Order, 

273 

Name,  the  proposed,  3-14;  its 

signif.,  151-154.  324      . 
Neale,    on    Prcsbytcrianism    in 
Scotland,  44;  Bancroft's  ser- 
mon, 276 
Neander,    view    of    Episcopate, 

285, 287 
Necessary    Doctrine    and  Erudi- 
tion,   the,     identifies     Bishop 
and  Priest,  78,  note;  Episco- 
pacy not  essential,  270,  271 
Newman,  J.  H.,  on  necessity  of 
Episcopate,   128,   129;  claims 
E.    rests    on    same    basis    as 
Papacy,    211;   his    theory    of 
doc.    development,   200,   202, 
203;  relat.  to  Oxford  Move- 
ment, 282,  283 
Novatus,  a  Presbyter,  ordains  a 

Deacon,  249,  250 
CEcumenius.on  identity  of  Bishop 

and  Presbyter,  262 
"Ordain"  w.  "order,"  signif.  of 

terms,  71  et  seq. 
Ordaining  Presbytery,  of  Eark, 

recog.,  108,  114 
Order,  vs.  Office,  technical  use 
of  terms,  229-231;  mediaeval 
conception  of,  266,  note;  Epis- 
copate an  Office,  not  an,  231, 
et  seq.;  Episcopate  and  Pres- 
byterate,  the  same,  239-269; 
Clemens  Romanus,  240;  Teach- 
ing of  Twelve  Apostles,  240; 
Ignatian  Epistles,  240-243 ; 
Polycarp,  244;  Papias,  244; 
Irenasus,  245-247;  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  247;  Tertul- 
lian,  247;  Hippolytus,  247, 
248;  Firmilian,  248;  Alexan- 
dria, Church  of,  248,  249; 
Novatus,  249,  250;  Cyprian, 
250;  Ancyra,  Council  of,  250, 
251;  Epiphanius,  252;  Hilary, 
Deacon,  252;  Ambrose,  252; 
Jerome,    253;    Culdees,    the, 


255;  Aerius,  256;  Paphnutius, 
256;  Chrysostom,  256;  Augus- 
tine, 256,  257;  Pelagius,  257; 
Theodore,  of  Mopsuestia,  257; 
Theodoret,  257;  Sedulius,  257; 
Boethius,  257;  Liberatus,  257, 
258;    Primasius,    258;    Theo- 
phylact,   259;   Isidore   Hispa- 
lensis,  259;  Bede,  259;  Alcuin, 
259;  Willchad,  259;  Luidgar, 
259;  Aix,  Synod  of,  259,  260; 
Amalarius,    260;    Eutychius, 
260,  261;  Severus,  261,  262; 
Oecumenius,      262 ;      Aclfric, 
Canons  of,  262;  Aclfric,  Pasto- 
ral   of,     262;     Anselm,     262; 
Hugo  St.  Victor,  262;  Gratian, 
263;     Peter    Lombard,     263; 
Waldenscs,  the,  263;  AlbertuS 
Magnus,  263 ;  Alexander  Alen- 
sis,    263;    George    Ehnacinus, 
264;  Celestine  V.,  Pope,  264; 
Guilielmus,    Parisiensis,    264; 
Bonaventura,    264;    Thomas 
Aquinas,  265;  Durandus,  265; 
Peter    Aureolus,    265;    Mar- 
siglio  of  Padua,  265;  Wyclif, 
265,  266;  Lollards,  the,  266; 
Pupilla  Oculi,  266;  Manipulus 
Ciiratorum,   266;     Huss,   266; 
Eugenius,     Pope,    266,     267; 
Tostatus,  267;    Antonius    de 
Rosellis,  268;  Pontifical,  15th 
Cent.,     268;     Cajetan,     268; 
Innocent    VIII.,    Pope,    268; 
Malabar  Christians,  268,  269; 
Erasmus,     269;     Continental 
Reformers,   the,   273;   Danish 
Confession,     273;  .  Smalcald, 
Art.,  273;  Confession  of  Sax- 
ony, 273;  Confession  of  Wit- 
tenberg,  273;     Confession  of 
Belgium,  273;    Confession  of 
Bohemia,  273;  Helvetic  Con- 
fession, 273 
Ordinal,    its    evidence    respect. 
Orders,  64-80;  83  et  seq.;    of 
Church  of  Scotland,  49,  50 
Ordination,  Presbyterian,_  never 
pronounced  invalid,  objection 
answered,  113-115    / 


334 


INDEX 


Organizations,  Protestant,  not 
parts  of  Catholic  Church,  ob- 
jection answered,  115   et  seq. 

Oxford  Movement,  condemned 
by  authority,  282,  326 

Papacy,  and  Prelacy  rest  upon 
same  basis,  205-207;  New- 
man's remarks  upon,  211 

Paphnutius,  on  validity  of  Pres- 
byterian Ordination,  256 

Papias,  fragments  of,  testify  as 
to  ident.  Apostles  and  Presby- 
ters, 244 

Patent,  of  Edward  VI.,  recog. 
the  Church  of  the  Germans, 
107,  109;  recog.  validity  of 
Protestant  Sacraments,  163 

Pelagius,  said  to  have  asserted 
equality  Bishop  and  Presby- 
ter, 257,  285 

Perowne,  opposes  "catholic" 
theory,  285 

Peter  Aureolus,  on  ident.  Bishop 
a^nd  Presbyter,  265 

Philpot,  Archdeacon,  recog.  non- 
epis.  Churches,  56,  107 

Pilkington,  Bishop,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56,  107 

Plummer,  on  commission  Matt, 
xxviii.,  V.  19,  299 

Polycarp,  evidence  con.  identity 
of  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  244 

Pontifical,  A  15th  Cent.,  declares 
Episcopate  not  an  Order,  268 

Prayers,  officially  set  forth,  for 
the  Catholic  Church,  107; 
officially  set  forth,  for  indi- 
vidual Churches,  107,  108 

Prelacy,  not  Episcopacy,  con- 
demned, 322  et  seq. 

Presbyters,  still  ordain,  236-238 

Prideaux,  on  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  108 

Primasius,  on  ident.  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  258 

Proctor,  on  Prayer  for  the 
Churches  of  France,  38 

Protestant  Bodies,  excluded  from 
Catholic  Church,  7  et  seq. 

Protestant    Episcopal    Church, 


branch  of  Catholic  Church, 
3 ;  relat.  to  Church  of  England, 
104,  105,  108 

Pupilla  Oculi,  on  Lay  Baptism, 
20;  Episcopate  not  an  Order, 
266 

Puritans,  the,  views  respect. 
Church  Government,  216,  295, 
296 

Pusey,  and  the  Oxford  Move- 
ment, 282 

Quadrilateral,  the  Lambeth,  318 
et  seq. 

Rainolds,  Dr.,  recog,  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  108 

Ramsay,  opposes  "catholic" 
theory,  285 

Reformation,  in  Church  of  Eng- 
land, when  completed,  105, 
106;  mistakes  of,  146,  147,  149; 
Lord  Halifax  on,  147 

Reformers,  Anglican,  appealed 
to  antiquity  and  Catholic 
usage,  189-190;  denounced 
by  "catholics,"  147;  their 
opinions  vs.  opin.  of  "catho- 
lics," 184-188;  205,  206;  view 
of  Church  as  reservoir  of 
Divine  Power,  296,  297,  note 

Re-ordination,  its  meaning  mis- 
understood, 86  et  seq.,  94-96 

Revisers  of  1662,  the,  ratify 
position  of  Anglican  Reform- 
ers, 183,  279  et  seq. 

Revision  of  1662,  the,  involved 
no  doctrinal  changes,  62,  63, 
83  et  seq.,  103,  108,  165,  279, 
et  seq.;  Hore's  testimony  con., 
98,  note;  Bp.  Seymour  on,  104 

Ridley,  Bishop,  his  attitude 
toward  non-epis,  churches, 
56,  107 

Rogers,  Thomas,  on  recog,  non- 
epis.  churches,  40 

Romanism,  a  constant  menace, 
324.  325 

Sabatier,  Augusts,  attitude  to- 
wards Episcopacy,  285 


INDEX 


335 


Sacrament,  of  Confirmation, 
Penance,  etc.,  Anglican  vs. 
"Catholic"  view,  i86;  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Reformers' 
view  of,  1 86,  187;  Reserva- 
tion of  the,  187 
Sacraments,  of  the  Protestant 
Churches,  valid,  163,  et  seq., 
1 86.  {See  also  Patent  Edward 
VI.,  Grindal,  Usher,  Cosin) 
Salmasius,  views  respect.  Chor- 

episcopi,  263 
Salvation,     personal,     dep.     on 
Episcopate  ace.  "Cath."  the- 
ory, 124,  134;  141-145 
Sancroft,     Archb.,     recog.     the 

Reformed  Churches,  loi 
Sanday,  on  origin  of  Episcopate, 

78,  note;  285,  288 
Sara  via,  Dr.,  on  episcopal  ordi- 
nation, 56,  107 
Sarum    Manual,   on   Lay   Bap- 
tism, 19 
Savoy  Conference  Commission- 
ers, appeal  to  antiquity,  189 
Schaff,  on  origin  of  Episcopate, 

78,  note;  285,  288 
Schoolmen,     opinions     respect. 

Chorepiscopi,  263 
Scotland,  the  Reformed  Church 
of,  33;  a  Presbyterian  Church, 
.    40,  et  seq.,  107,  108;  on  Episco- 
pacy, 49;  see  also,  137,  138 
Seeker,  Archb.,  recog.  non-epis. 

churches,  56 
Sedulius,      maintained      ident. 

Bishop  and  Presbyter,  257 
Severus,  on  ordination  at  Alex- 
andria, 261,  262 
Seymour,  Bishop  of  Springfield, 
on  Revision  of  1662,  104;  on 
relat.  P.  E.  Church  to  Church 
of  England,  105 
Sherlock,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  re- 
cog. Reformed  Churches,  loi, 
102 
Spalatensis,  views  respect.  Chor- 
episcopi, 263 
Spottiswoode,  on  estab.  Episco- 
pacy in  Scotland,  47;  on  the 
Culdees,  255 


St.  Albans,  the  Bishop  of,  ac- 
cused by  Zanzibar,  158 

Stanley,  Dean,  opposes  "catho- 
lic" theory,  285 

Stillingfleet,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  108;  on  the 
Culdees,  255 

Strype,  on  ordination  of  Mor- 
rison, 33;  on  admission  of 
non-episcopal  clergy  into 
Church  of  England,  34,  108 

Succession,  the  Apostolic,  318- 
320;  not  to  be  confused  with 
Historic  Episcopate,  318; 
"catholic"  theory  of,  never 
authorized  by  the  Church, 
318,  note 

Sutcliffe,  on  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  108 

Synopsis  Papismi,  quoted  re- 
spect, the  Foreign  Reformed 
Churches,  38,  39 

Taylor,  Bishop  Jeremy,  on  signif. 
of  word  "Order,"  66 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
The,  its  evid.  respect,  ident. 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  240 

TertuUian,  on  ident.  Bishop  and 
Presbyter,  247;  on  Church  as 
the  reservoir  of  Divine  Power 
247,  297;  opposed  to  "catho- 
lic" theory,  289 

Thatcher  and  McNeal's  Source 
Book,  quoted,  265 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  regard- 
ing ident.  Bishop  and  Presby- 
ter, 257,  285 

Theodoret,  regardmg  ident. 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  257, 
285 

Thcophylact,  said  to  have  held 
the  identity  of  Order,  239 

Thorpe's  Ancient  Laws  and 
Institutes,  quoted,  262 

Tillotson,  on  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  108 

Tindal,  on  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  108 

Tomline,  Bishop,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56 


336 


INDEX 


Tostatus,  Bishop  of  Avila,  on 
Church  as  reservoir  of  Divine 
Power,  267 

Trelawney,  C.  T.  C,  respect, 
the  Malabar  Christians,  268, 
269 

Trent,  Council  of,  respect.  Bap- 
tism, 20 

"Tulchan  Bishops,"  41 

Turrian,  on  the  Chorepiscopi, 
263 

Uganda,  Bishop  of,  accused  of 
heresy,  162  et  seq. 

Usher,  Archb.,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  96,  97,  108;  on 
identity  of  Bishop  and  Presby- 
ter, 97;  receiving  Communion 
at  hands  of  Protestant  Clergy, 
97 

Vincent,  Bishop,  on  the  Angli- 
can Quadrilateral,  319-320 
Vincentian  Formula,  182 
Virgin,  the,  Worship  of,  203 

Wake,  Archb.,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  102 

Walcott,  his  Canons  Ecclesiasti- 
cal, quoted,  189 

Waldenses,  the,  asserted  the 
ident.  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
263 

Westcott,  Canon  B.  F,,  opposes 
"catholic"  theory,  285;  re- 
garding the  Commission  of 
Matt,  xxviii.,  v.  19,  299 


Westcott,  F.  N.,  respect,  "catho- 
lic" theory  of  Authority,  302, 
303 

Whateley,  opposed  to  "catholic" 
theory,  285 

White,  Bishop  Francis,  recog. 
non-epis.  churches,  56,  108 

White,  Thomas,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56,  108 

White,  Bishop  William,  on  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  319  note 

Whitgift,  Archb.,  recog.  non- 
epis.  churches,  56,  60,  107; 
asserts  no  one  form  of  Govern- 
ment necessary,  213;  com- 
ments on  Bancroft's  sermon, 
276;  respect,  the  Church  as 
reservoir  of  Divine  Power, 
297,  note 

Whittaker,  Dr.,  recog.  non-epis. 
churches,  56,  107 

Willehad,  endorsed  and  practised 
Presbyterian  Ordination,  259 

Willet,  Dr.  Andrew,  on  recog. 
of  Protestant  Churches,  38, 
39,  56,  108 

Wordsworth,  Bishop  Charles, 
on     Lambeth     Quadrilateral, 

318,319  . 
Wyclif,  maintained  equality  of 
Bishop  and  Presbyter,  256, 266 

Zanzibar,  Bishop  of,  prefers 
charges  of  heresy,  157  et  seq.; 
a  follower  of  Newman  and 
Manning,  283;  Z.  vs.  Light- 
foot  et  al.,  286 


Date  Due 

FE4-1 

5? 

- 

^ 

